Great news indeed. The reported performance boost does justify cutting a new release. Folks, how do you all feel about releasing HttpClient 2.0.2?
Oleg On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 00:38, Eric Johnson wrote: > And I've finally gotten test results back from the appropriate people here. > > In our test lab, between HttpClient 2.0.1 and the nightly, we found a > difference of about 4ms per request. As this was a live-test > environment, with all of our application environment around HttpClient, > the total numbers are probably mostly irrelevant to HttpClient, but the > measurable improvement was entirely due to HttpClient changes. > > We have some other statistics, but I worry that those are misleading for > now, so I'm not mentioning those. Hopefully, I'll be able to pass along > some concrete data at some point. > > For our purposes, the build otherwise looks stable. > > -Eric. > > Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > >Folks, > > > >Could you please grab the latest 2.0 nightly build and see if it runs > >stable enough for production purposes? When we have a couple of reports > >confirming adequate stability, we'll call for the 2.0.2 release > > > >Oleg > > > > > >On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 00:00, Eric Johnson wrote: > > > > > >>My read on Odi's statistics is that the patch has a pretty consistent > >>1ms impact on every request. This corresponds pretty well with my > >>understanding of the theoretical improvements behind the patch. To the > >>effect that HttpClient's performance is affected, header parsing will be > >>faster, and reading the body of the connection will be roughly the same, > >>presumably because the client of HttpClient buffers large reads. > >> > >>On a 1Ghz machine, this patch means one million processor cycles that > >>can be put to a better use for *each* request. That's more than > >>benchmark optimization, I think. > >> > >>-Eric. > >> > >>Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Eric, > >>> > >>>This patch makes a difference for only relatively small payloads when > >>>the response content is about the size of the status line + headers. In > >>>most (real life) cases the performance gain is virtually negligible. > >>>This is more about benchmark optimization than anything else. > >>> > >>>Yet, it see no problem with another point release > >>> > >>>Oleg > >>> > >>>On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 19:06, Eric Johnson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I don't know whether this would be a premature time to call for a new > >>>>release, but the prospect of significantly better performance out of > >>>>HttpClient has some people in my company very interested. > >>>> > >>>>What are the chances of a 2.0.2 release with this fix in it? (I'm > >>>>willing to build from the source, but others in my company like the idea > >>>>of an "official" build perhaps more than they need to.) > >>>> > >>>>-Eric. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
