nice.
On Mar 8, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Eric Day wrote:
Hi Curtis,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 04:31:59PM +, Curtis Carter wrote:
Couple of questions.
Where did you come up with 300 bytes per message for ets?
Raw message = key(16) + ttl(8) + hide(8) + body(100) = 132 bytes
I inserted the
Hi everyone,
I added a sqlite backend to the prototype and ran some tests. Initially
things were very slow, but after some further testing I was able
to figure out where the time was being spent. In order to do this I
added a very simple binary protocol interface to insert only. These
tests are
...@oddments.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:58 PM
To: Todd Willey
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Queue Service Implementation Thoughts
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 04:47:38PM -0500, Todd Willey wrote:
With this switch to python, does it make sense to revisit the concept
I ran the tests again to verify:
500k requests - 10 processes each running 50k requests.
time req/s cs us sy id
2 thread/proc
echo c++ 7.19 69541 142182 23 77 0
echo erlang 9.53 52465 105871 39 61 0
echo python 9.58 52192 108420 42 58 0
2 thread/proc
wsgi
Eric, Thanks for your experimentation and analysis. Somewhat illustrates the point about premature optimization. First cut, have to agree with you and conclude that python implementation is effective, overall. As you said,if we find performance bottlenecks, especially as the payload size increases
5 matches
Mail list logo
