On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Justin Erenkrantz > <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: >> Are you by chance using SSL? >> >> I'm seeing something like a 2x perf drop on ra_serf with SSL to an SSL >> server on the other side of the US from where I am now. But, over >> HTTP, ra_serf is pretty close to ra_neon. (And, the server is 1.6 - >> not 1.7.) > > I've committed a bunch of fixes and improvements to serf for SSL. > This should bring ra_serf in line with ra_neon for SSL. > > As a data point, 'svn ls -v' on a directory - old serf exchanged 90 > TCP packets for 31.5KB; new serf does 41 TCP packets for 11.5KB; > ra_neon does 99 TCP packets for 19.5KB. Wall clock time looks to be > about the same between ra_neon & ra_serf (I'm at high latency). > > Basic tests: > | 1.7.0-dev (serf) | rNNNNNNNN | 1:07.272 | 0:35.990 | 0:04.994 | > 0:00.043 | 0:00.060 | 0:07.897 | 0:00.041 > | 1.7.0-dev (neon) | rNNNNNNNN | 1:17.145 | 0:23.997 | 0:06.000 | > 0:00.045 | 0:00.059 | 0:09.893 | 0:00.039
I rebuilt using latest HEAD of Serf and SVN (no patches applied) and re-ran the tests using a 1.7 serf client and both a 1.6 and 1.7 SVN server. While the server was configured according to your recommendations for KeepAlive, I did not have mod_deflate turned on. Also, I am using plain HTTP, not SSL. The numbers were basically the same as I posted before, so I will not post them again. Your fixes seemed to be related to SSL, so I am guessing this is not really surprising, but thought I would share anyway. One thing I am a little confused about, but maybe it is a question for C-Mike. When Serf is used, the number of HTTP requests does not go down very much. 81,938 -> 80,928 I imagine this is because Serf already did not do all of the PROPFIND nonsense we do with Neon? Still, what are the HTTPv2 benefits that Serf is supposed to see? I seem to only see benefits when using Neon. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
