axis-c-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Samisa Abeysinghe <>
Subject Re: Axis2/C Performance Article
Date Thu, 15 May 2008 17:31:26 GMT
Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> I think I have found the reason behind Guththila's low performance on 
> large data sets. Guththila's token cache gets too big in large 
> requests. A simple release statement was missing in the code and that 
> causes the cache to get too big. I need to investigate further on this 
> and want to run the performance tests again.

It is good news that you have figured the reason for large data set 
problem. I think it is critical that we uplift performance for large 
data sets as well. Could you please point me to the source file location 
where you found the problem so that I too could have a look.

On another related note, I am really keen on seeing how vtd-xml would 
perform. I wish I had more time to write a parser wrapper with vtd-xml :)
And another thing is to try with some async transport and see how it 
works out for us. This is based on the fact that the secret of Synapse 
performance is based on NIO based Axis2 transport. However, I am not 
sure how this would turn out for us.
And of course, FCGI module with httpd would be an exciting option as well.


> Regards,
> Supun..
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Yes I agree with Nabeel. We need to figure out why our performance
>     is low when the data sizes are large. At the surface level it
>     seems that it has nothing to do with the Axis2/C engine when
>     compare to the Axis2 Java. Also when the data sizes are large
>     httpd itself may get slow.
>     Another important thing is we need to see why guththila is slow
>     when it comes to large data sizes. My guess is the buffer
>     mechanism used in the guththila_xml_parser is causing this. But
>     need to investigate this properly using a profiling tool.
>     Thanks,
>     Supun..
>     On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Nabeel Yoosuf
>     < <>> wrote:
>         It's encouraging to see the C implementation performs well.
>         As per the graphs, the performance gap between the two
>         implementations implementations (Java/C) and between the two
>         parsers (Guththila/Libxml2) narrows down as the data set size
>         increases. There could possibly be two reasons for this.
>         1. Increased bandwidth utilization (as indicated in one of
>         those graphs) adds more network latency.
>         2. The engine is less efficient in processing large data sets
>         compared to small sets.
>         It would be interesting to see which of the above two is the
>         dominant factor.
>         If it is the first one, one approach may be to introduce
>         message compression techniques for large data sets further
>         improve performance. If it is the second one, one possible
>         direction is to see if the same data set is repeatedly
>         processed and take preventive actions (e.g. caching,
>         annotations, etc.).
>         Thanks,
>         Nabeel.
>         On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Samisa Abeysinghe
>         < <>> wrote:
>             For anyone who is interested:
>             Samisa...
>             -- 
>             Samisa Abeysinghe Director, Engineering; WSO2 Inc.
>    - "The Open Source SOA Company"
>             ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>             To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>             <>
>             For additional commands, e-mail:
>             <>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date: 5/15/2008 7:24 AM

Samisa Abeysinghe 
Director, Engineering; WSO2 Inc. - "The Open Source SOA Company"

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message