On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:51, Nate Lawson <n...@root.org> wrote: >> ... >> BTW, are there any plans for the Riak python client to use the protobuf C >> library directly via ctypes? The pure python implementation of protobuf >> seems a little slow. > > Not that I've seen. I plan to use the HTTP interface because I can > encrypt it, and I can avoid MitM attacks. That isn't possible with the > protobuf interface. I think you'll need to find somebody that deploys > heavy use of the protobuf interface to be interested enough to improve > its speed.
There should be an SSL option for Riak with protobufs, perhaps on an alternate port. No reason to go to http just to get SSL. > Note that I've sped up the Python HTTP transport. It is definitely > faster (via persistent connections), but I haven't done a comparison > against protobufs yet. Basho has a benchmarking tool that I might try. I wonder if gzip encoding would also help for larger keys/values? -Nate _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
