[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [DISCUSS] delete ra_neon

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:12:59 +0100

Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Philip Martin
> <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> Those look like the numbers with mod-deflate in the path.  Although
>> mod-deflate reduces the traffic it pushes up the server CPU because serf
>> is pushing so much more data through the compressor.  It's not much of a
>> selling point that serf only increases traffic by 20% if it also
>> increases CPU.
>
> IIRC, ra_neon is using a compressor too (native svndiff stuff with the
> base64/XML-escaping) - so, it's not quite fair to say that neon isn't
> doing pretty much the same thing...just in a different code path that
> isn't controlled by mod_deflate. So, I think you need to compare
> apples-to-apples. -- justin

I do. Look at the numbers in the issue. I compare neon and serf with
mod-deflate. I compare neon and serf without mod-deflate. I compare
neon and serf over https.

Serf might be slightly better on CPU but only when the traffic is
doubled. If we enable mod-deflate to reduce the traffic difference
between neon and serf it makes the serf CPU go up much more than the
neon CPU goes up. I can't see any situation where serf is a clear
winner.

-- 
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
Received on 2012-05-16 21:13:35 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.