Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 74939 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2009 14:15:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2009 14:15:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 91621 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2009 14:15:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 91562 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2009 14:15:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 91552 invoked by uid 99); 3 Nov 2009 14:15:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:15:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert.newson@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.218] (HELO mail-bw0-f218.google.com) (209.85.218.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:15:30 +0000 Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so6320869bwz.35 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:15:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fFnD5IzS8fM56lD8gX4NK+jmYKyw09soHsg1bGPumvU=; b=NMBxlW8vbLc40rxqil33td3MvD+l2PAtb+t+FL+7UhF2ErFhtWNPJdxd6u76+iL2xD Y+/UgdKFGlzY9AXWyAUgk4cXYvPzZcsTqIZFfyDCaJSdFuCDmvfSXrcdfrMtQrQEQ4AG rC+FXD+jqlLVSH+KXu+bujXJ+TzKIGm5Ts8QQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DN1rUVju3MGVtWoaKC2HpapPBjJOg+xCaEPqovyn31QHMSKnT0B2dNndq3krkVCMP9 bhhI8C8cjit3/iWL4fVnHKNK0zf5sTmAJ1JfpYmA/UGcRcEU3b2rUCLt7wtnALjiD4Yc ayuO5nwTJawT3T0T+7OeM06pLoM7bLH1Tqwy0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.65 with SMTP id u1mr3619bkb.176.1257257708833; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:15:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <-2475371172427800684@unknownmsgid> References: <4AEFFEC9.2020404@rogerbinns.com> <-818254707187926005@unknownmsgid> <46aeb24f0911030422n334467f5x71a0b312105d3b7f@mail.gmail.com> <-2475371172427800684@unknownmsgid> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:15:08 +0000 Message-ID: <46aeb24f0911030615p7a846f3bnd5e9eecea24629e9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Performance issue From: Robert Newson To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One thing that snagged me one time was a client that sent "Expect: Continue" header. There was a time when couchdb didn't recognize this case-insensitively. For me, this caused a two second delay to all requests. B. On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Sebastian Negomireanu wrote: > I am connecting to the database from my .NET application (which uses Diva= n > as a library). But I've put it through a profiler and I get the large del= ay > when waiting for the response from the database. The time needed to run t= he > application itself (prepare the JSON message, parse the response etc.) is > minimal compared to the time it waits for the request. Actually sending t= he > request takes less than 5ms. > > Anyway, I'll monitor everything with wireshark a bit later today and come > back with the results. Maybe, as Roger pointed out, my infrastructure is = the > cause for this. > > > Best regards, > Sebastian Negomireanu | CTO / Managing Partner JustDesign Sibiu, Romania > +40-726-181186 | +40-788-757462 > sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro > > SC JustDesign SRL | Str. Dorului 20, 550352, Sibiu, Romania > +40-269-210008 | office@justdesign.ro | www.justdesign.ro > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Newson [mailto:robert.newson@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:22 PM > To: user@couchdb.apache.org > Subject: Re: Performance issue > > What HTTP client are you using? > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Sebastian Negomireanu > wrote: >> Ok I will try that and come back with results. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Sebastian Negomireanu | CTO / Managing Partner JustDesign Sibiu, Romania >> +40-726-181186 | +40-788-757462 >> sebastian.negomireanu@justdesign.ro >> >> SC JustDesign SRL | Str. Dorului 20, 550352, Sibiu, Romania >> +40-269-210008 | office@justdesign.ro | www.justdesign.ro >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roger Binns [mailto:rogerb@rogerbinns.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:59 AM >> To: user@couchdb.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Performance issue >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Sebastian Negomireanu wrote: >>> In both scenarios, I get response times around 500ms >> >> In these kind of situations I am a big fan of using Wireshark to see > exactly >> what the response time is. =A0There could be all sorts of funky stuff go= ing > on >> such as proxy servers, DNS lookups, IPv6 failing and then going to IPv4 > and >> who knows what else that may be major contributions to the time as > observed >> by the client side code. >> >> Roger >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkrv/sgACgkQmOOfHg372QTcGQCdF0U0esBf+ODH54UESA1onxr2 >> i8AAn3beEdWJr0GbJXP1Z0hFirMWqyPO >> =3DmUU0 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> > > >