On Nov 10, 2011 4:26 PM, "Nate Lawson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:51, Nate Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... > >> BTW, are there any plans for the Riak python client to use the protobuf C library directly via ctypes? The pure python implementation of protobuf seems a little slow. > > > > Not that I've seen. I plan to use the HTTP interface because I can > > encrypt it, and I can avoid MitM attacks. That isn't possible with the > > protobuf interface. I think you'll need to find somebody that deploys > > heavy use of the protobuf interface to be interested enough to improve > > its speed. > > There should be an SSL option for Riak with protobufs, perhaps on an alternate port. No reason to go to http just to get SSL.
Certainly, but I haven't heard anyone thinking of that either. Unless/until somebody codes that up, then I'm sticking to HTTP(S). > > Note that I've sped up the Python HTTP transport. It is definitely > > faster (via persistent connections), but I haven't done a comparison > > against protobufs yet. Basho has a benchmarking tool that I might try. > > I wonder if gzip encoding would also help for larger keys/values? It absolutely would. It is generally faster to compress/decompress than the time spent to transfer the extra bytes on the wire. I dunno Erlang, but I could certainly fix the Python client to deal with potential compression. Cheers, -g
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
