- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:12:17 -0700
- To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Michael Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>
- Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Robert James Steele" <rsteele@it.uts.edu.au>, <www-ws@w3.org>
It's hard to really evaluate these things without more data. What was the cpu load on the slow machine that was doing compression? What is the relationship between cpu speeds on the compression/decompression machines and the round trip time? FWIW, I don't think it surprising that certain CPU speeds make compression worse. IMO, the more important question is what is the relationship between cpu and network speed? And there's also the relationship between client versus server cpu and encryption/decryption. Imagine that decompression is "cheap" compared to compression, then it might be that a telco could upgrade is servers to do compression on messages to clients, and thus compression is a net benefit to the system. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Francis McCabe > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:08 PM > To: Michael Champion > Cc: David Booth; Robert James Steele; www-ws@w3.org > Subject: Re: SOAP performance > > > I guess that those pointy brackets are expensive! > But, really, is this a surprise? > > (I was mildly surprised at the result re. compression: it makes things > worse) > > Frank > > On Oct 25, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Michael Champion wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2004, at 5:13 PM, David Booth wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Sounds interesting. Is there a URL for it? > >> > >> > > http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/alternate/P872/p872-kohlhoff.html > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2004 18:12:46 UTC