Hi Oded & Andreas, Oded Arbel wrote: > > Hmm. yes - I do compile using checking malloc. I re-comiled using native > malloc and it looks better - haven't had all the capacity testing done > on it yet though. Is it just that - checking malloc is so slow to cause > thrashing in code that do de-allocations ? > > -- > Oded Arbel > m-Wise Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Knebel's Law: > It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes > of statistics. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:26 PM > > To: Oded Arbel > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [BUG] list implementation too slow. > > > > > > >Hi list. > > > > > >Lately we've been doing some very high capacity testing on > > Kannel , and > > >found out some interesting stuff. mainly as queues (managed by lists) > > >are filling up to over a few hundreds of messages, the boxes start > > >thrashing. > > >I think this is directly related to the List implementation > > - it's just > > >too sssslllloooowwww. when we have more then a few hundreds > > of messages > > >in the List, extracting one item can sometimes take anywhere > > from 2 to 4 > > >seconds (!!!). > > > > > >Does any one have any information or experience regarding that ? > > > > I strongly disagree with this. My gateway at some point in time had > > over 100'000 messages in the list and it dequeued as fast as it can, > > sending out about 40msg/sec (and that was the limit of the SMSC, not > > kannel). > > > > Maybe you run it in non native-malloc mode?
I did use native malloc. And yes, checking malloc is much slower. And yes, I would agree that Kannel's long term performance is about or higher than 40 msg/s. It is difference between peak and long term performances that worries me. Aarno
