W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > October 2004

RE: SOAP performance

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:12:17 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B43614D@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:46 GMT