Internode times in our datacenter at SL are indistinguishible from
loopback; TCP/IP processing dominates. HTTP, on the other hand, involves
either in-depth connection management/multiplexing, or TCP/IP
setup/teardown latency at either end of a request. In read-write heavy
apps, protobufs outperforms HTTP in throughput by 2x or more, against
objects of 500-4000 bytes. That's with the ruby client; ymmv.
--Kyle
On 10/04/2011 07:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011 7:01 PM, "Mike Oxford" <moxf...@gmail.com
<mailto:moxf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> You'll want to run protobufs if you're looking to optimize your
> response time; HTTP sockets (even to localhost) will require much more
> overhead and time.
Hmm? The protocol seems moot, compared to inter-node comms when r > 1
Protocol parsing just doesn't seem like much of a factor. On my laptop,
I was seeing a 3ms response time against one node. I can't imagine that
parsing was more than a few percent, no matter the protocol.
(and no, I have no specific numbers to confirm/deny my thought
experiment here)
> Even better would be unix sockets if they're available, and you can
> bypass the whole TCP stack.
What? Is that even an option for Riak? I haven't seen anything about that.
>...
Cheers,
-g
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
