RE: SOAP performance

Yes, compression is generally not good for either latency or CPU
utilization, it is only there to help the network utilization / throughput.
However, that is usually not the dominant factor, at least on LANs. The
authors of this paper recognize this the conclusions. [aside: This is why
various types of binary XML schemes have been interesting (a point missed by
their opponents on this list and others) -- they actually reduce latency &
CPU requirements on client and/or server.] 

Our experience is that with custom DataPower network gear, we can get
XML/SOAP messaging to deliver real-time performance -- including financial
services usecases outlined in this paper. Indeed, for some of our customers,
network bandwidth can again become the limitation, and then compression or
some binary encoding becomes interesting. 

\\ Eugene Kuznetsov, Chairman & CTO  : eugene@datapower.com 
\\ DataPower Technology, Inc.        : Web Services security 
\\ http://www.datapower.com          : XML-aware networks   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:12 PM
> To: Francis McCabe; Michael Champion
> Cc: David Booth; Robert James Steele; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP performance
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 5 November 2004 00:56:07 UTC