[reSIProcate] Followup on c-ares support

[Byron Campen]

> Brad Spencer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:33:08PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>> During our testing, we did note that c-ares is substantially  
>>> faster than the resip version of ares.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting.  How much faster are we talking about?
>>
>
> I don't have the actual benchmarks at hand, but Byron and I  
> discussed first-cut performance results. Doing some very DNS-heavy  
> processing (i.e., each request was associated with a different DNS  
> record, so no caching was possible), I think he said that we were  
> able to push almost twice as many SIP transactions through repro  
> with c-ares than with the built-in ares.
>

	No SIP processing was done. The load-test was relying on globbing  
ENUM NAPTR records; so it was an initial NAPTR query that would miss  
cache, which fed into another NAPTR query that did cache. c-ares was  
about twice as fast at this as resip-ares.

Best regards,
Byron Campen

> Normal disclaimers apply (we may have overlooked something, YMMV,  
> etc).
>
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel