On 08 Aug 2001 11:45:56 -0500, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> I guess that's a possiblity (your guess at the bottom). Also, do you check
> for bounces? Some of them could be doing that for one reason or another?
re: bad XML parsing
I had someone scan the code and it looks good. I don't think the problem
is mine.
re: bounces
Bounces? Maybe, but I don't see how. My test programs send from user A
to user B, and I always know who user B is since it's hardcoded into the
testing applications (more or less).
The code is pretty short: msgloadsnd and msgloadrec are each about 500
lines of code, excluding some outside code they rely on. Want to take a
look?
It is always possible I did something stupid.
Regards, Dustin
>
> --temas
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:29:52PM -0500, Dustin Puryear wrote:
> > I am trying to determine why messages appear to be dropped when jabberd
> > is under a heavy load. I'm not sure if it's my code or jabberd, so I'm
> > looking for ideas.
> >
> > I have multiple user pairs, where each pair is composed of a sending
> > client A and receiving client B. Under a high load not all messages sent
> > from A appear to arrive at B. I find this odd because I would think that
> > the delivery time would be the only thing affected under high load, not
> > actual message delivery. Thus, I suspect my code, but can't rule out
> > jabberd.
> >
> > Following are Jabber Test Suite results generating my concern, and then
> > a review of what is going on:
> >
> > UserPs Rate Duration MinDelTime MaxDelTime AvgDelTime MsgCnt ExpMsg
> > MsgLossRate
> > 10 1 60 0.00310 0.10796 0.00471 600 600 0.00000
> > 20 1 60 0.00484 0.15478 0.00930 1200 1200 0.00000
> > 30 1 60 0.00668 0.16320 0.01948 1800 1800 0.00000
> > 40 1 60 0.00844 0.17075 0.02729 2400 2400 0.00000
> > 50 1 60 0.01026 0.21504 0.04267 3000 3000 0.00000
> > 60 1 60 0.00608 0.21595 0.05980 3600 3600 0.00000
> > 70 1 60 0.00532 0.36635 0.05474 4200 4200 0.00000
> > 80 1 60 0.01197 0.19757 0.03924 4800 4800 0.00000
> > 90 1 60 0.00984 0.23845 0.04508 5400 5400 0.00000
> > 100 1 60 0.00233 0.33065 0.06156 6000 6000 0.00000
> > 110 1 60 0.00326 0.48642 0.05514 6600 6600 0.00000
> > 120 1 60 0.00518 6.02132 0.07296 6960 7200 0.03333
> > 130 1 60 0.00900 6.10875 0.10111 7380 7800 0.05385
> > 140 1 60 0.01031 5.98667 0.09968 7980 8400 0.05000
> > 150 1 60 0.01358 6.16324 0.10493 7980 9000 0.11333
> > 160 1 60 0.01539 6.23972 0.14795 8280 9600 0.13750
> >
> > Notice that at >= 120 user pairs (240 connected users), which equates to
> > 120 msg/sec in this test, my message loss rate varies from 3% to 13%.
> > The average delivery also climbs to .14 seconds, but I don't consider
> > that a problem. (However, the worst case delivery times are bad: > 6
> > seconds for 150 and 160 user pairs.)
> >
> > There are only two places that I feel messages could be getting lost: in
> > jabberd and in msgloadrec, the receiving client. If it's in jabberd then
> > I have to wonder why this is happening. If in msgloadrec, I'm also a bit
> > bewildered.
> >
> > Perhaps I am not handling my XML parsing correctly with expat? My XML
> > character data handler is:
> >
> > void char_data_hdlr(void *userdata, const XML_Char *s, int len)
> > {
> > user_data_t *ud = userdata;
> > char buf[MAX_XML_BUFSZ+1];
> > struct timeval tv;
> > reply_data_t *reply;
> > int id;
> >
> > memcpy(buf, s, len);
> > buf[len] = '\0';
> > DPRINT("found message: %s\n", buf);
> >
> > /* scan for our start times at the beginning of the message */
> > if (sscanf(buf, " %d %ld %ld ",
> > &id, &(tv.tv_sec), &(tv.tv_usec)) == 3)
> > {
> > reply = malloc(sizeof(reply_data_t));
> > if (reply == NULL)
> > {
> > perror("malloc()");
> > exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> > }
> >
> > DPRINT("char_data_hdlr(): adding buf = %s with sec = %ld and usec =
>%ld\n",
> > buf, tv.tv_sec, tv.tv_usec);
> >
> > reply->begin.tv_sec = tv.tv_sec;
> > reply->begin.tv_usec = tv.tv_usec;
> > reply->id = id;
> > list_add(&(ud->reply_list), (void *) reply);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > All character data has the form: "decimal float float". Hmm, should I
> > not be assuming that I will get the entire character data at once?
> > Perhaps it is being split across multiple invocations of
> > char_data_hdlr() by expat? Any ideas?
> >
> > Regards, Dustin
> >
> > --
> > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear
> > In the beginning the Universe was created.
> > This has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jdev mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
--
Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
