Ah... I will fix the license headers shortly.
On May 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Clebert Suconic <csuco...@redhat.com> wrote: > For now I have pretty much optimized the Transfer type only. no other types. > > for instance I see that Disposition type needs optimization as well... > > For us though the biggest advantage on the patch I'm making . > > If you send a 1K message.. you won't have much of the optimization on the > codec being exercised. > > we could do 10 Million Transfer in 3 seconds before... against 1.5 on my > laptop. If transferring 10Million * 10K is taking 40 seconds the optimization > of the 1.5 would be spread among the delivery and you wouldn't be able to see > a difference. > > > Why don't you try sending empty messages? meaning.. a message is received > with an empty body. > > On May 1, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Clebert, >> >> I've been (amongst other things) doing a little bit of investigation on >> this topic over the past couple of days. I wrote a microbenchmark that >> takes two engines and directly wires their transports together. It then >> pumps about 10 million 1K messages from one engine to the other. I ran this >> benchmark under jprofiler and codec definitely came up as a hot spot, but >> when I apply your patch, I don't see any measurable difference in results. >> Either way it's taking about 40 seconds to pump all the messages through. >> >> I'm not quite sure what is going on, but I'm guessing either the code path >> you've optimized isn't coming up enough to make much of a difference, or >> I've somehow messed up the measurements. I will post the benchmark shortly, >> so hopefully you can check up on my measurements yourself. >> >> On a more mundane note, Andrew pointed out that the new files you've added >> in your patch use an outdated license header. You can take a look at some >> existing files in the repo to get a current license header. >> >> --Rafael >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <csuco...@redhat.com>wrote: >> >>> I just submitted it as a git PR: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/1 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think anyone can sign up for ReviewBoard themselves. It certainly >>> didn't >>>> used to be linked to the ASF LDAP in the past, presumably for that >>> reason. >>>> >>>> Its probably also worth noting you can initiate pull requests against the >>>> github mirrors. If it hasn't already been done for the proton mirror, we >>>> can have the emails that would generate be directed to this list (e.g. >>>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/qpid-dev/201401.mbox/%3c20140130180355.3cf9e916...@tyr.zones.apache.org%3E >>> ). >>>> We obviously can't merge the pull request via github, but you can use >>>> the reviewing tools etc and the resultant patch can be downloaded or >>>> attached to a JIRA and then applied in the usual fashion (I believe there >>>> is a commit message syntax that can be used to trigger closing the pull >>>> request). >>>> >>>> Robbie >>>> >>>> On 30 April 2014 15:22, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Clebert Suconic <csuco...@redhat.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> @Rafi: I see there is a patch review process within Apache (based on >>>>> your >>>>>> other thread on Java8) >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we make this through the patch process at some point? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm fine looking at it on your git branch, but if you'd like to play >>> with >>>>> the review tool then feel free. Just let me know if you need an account >>>>> and I will try to remember how to set one up (or who to bug to get you >>>>> one). ;-) >>>>> >>>>> --Rafael >>>>> >>> >>> >
