Hi Slava, On Friday 28 November 2003 08:16, Vjacheslav Chekushin wrote: > Hi, Alexander. > First of all, test shows that _YAT_ approach works faster: > THREAD-VERSION : Time taken for tests: 4.688475 seconds > WITHOUT THREADS: Time taken for tests: 243.150797 seconds > But, to be honest, I don't beleive in it.
Test doesn't show anything interesting, since it's simply inaccurate or wrong. Have you notice this w/o YAT?: Failed requests: 570 (Connect: 0, Length: 570, Exceptions: 0) Here is something wrong... > The only choice for it: patch occasionaly remove some bug or > perfomance bottleneck from sources. > > And can you explain about expected perfomance degradation in YAT aproach. > Do you mean thread's swithing once at 20 seconds? I don't think so. > IMHO kernel switches between threads _realy_ fast, because threads > share the same address space, stack, code, etc. I agree with you that thread start time is very small (and is to be neglected), but the more threads are running the more expensive is the scheduling (ok, I know, Linux 2.6 has O(1) scheduler ;))... But the really question is: can we reach the same performance w/o YAT? and if we can't then yes I am ++1 for YAT! But we should try/test it first... > > I remember the time when kannel created new thread for every outgoing http > request. And even this worked pretty fast. > > Alexander Malysh wrote: > > hey, factor 50???? I want see a patch w/o YAT!!! > > It can't be soooo bad... > > > > On Thursday 27 November 2003 17:24, David Schmitz wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>your YAT-hatred ;) is well known and understood. See the attachment for > >>some naive benchmarks. Please draw your own conclusions. > >> > >>Regards, > >>David > >> > >>Alexander Malysh schrieb: > >>>Hi David/Slava, > >>> > >>>as you know, I do not like "yet another thread" (YAT) approach... > >>>Would you please try get some benchmark results w/ and w/o YAT, so we > >>> can see how is performance w/o YAT affected? > >>> > >>>Thanks in advance... > >>> > >>>On Thursday 27 November 2003 15:02, David Schmitz wrote: > >>>>Hi list, > >>>> > >>>>attached is the IMHO final version of the timeout-patch. I took the > >>>>thread-approach as discussed with Slava (thanks for your input and help > >>>> > >>>>:)). If there are no objections/corrections I would like to commit the > >>>> > >>>>patch. > >>>> > >>>>Note: configuration of the timeout-values is done in http.h. > >>>> > >>>>Best regards, > >>>>David -- Best regards / Mit besten Gr��en aus D�sseldorf Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Malysh ___________________________________________ Centrium GmbH Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 D�sseldorf Fon: +49 (0211) 74 84 51 80 Fax: +49 (0211) 277 49 109 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.centrium.de msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 98063111 ___________________________________________ Please avoid sending me Word, Excel or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
