So basically, what you are saying is that my volume is really too low to take
advantage of the persistent sniffer (and such may actually decrease my
performance), and I should stick with the non-service version. Is that right?
That is about what I thought (without the details of how sniffer works, I just
wanted to be sure).
Thanks, Pete.
Dan Horne
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:09 PM
To: Dan Horne
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
After following through all of this and looking at the .stat
file, I think I see what's going on.
Now that it is running and producing a .stat file, the flow
rate is very low. According to the stat data, about 6 msgs / minute.
Note the poll and loop times are in the 450 - 550 ms range.
SNF with the persistent engine is built for high throughput,
but it's also built to play nice.
The maximum poll time gets up to 2 seconds or so (sound familiar?)
If there are no messages for a while, then everything slows
down until the first message goes through. For that first
message, the SNF client will probably wait about 2 seconds
before looking for it's result because that's what the stat
file will tell it to do.
Since the next message probably won't come around for a few
seconds, that next message will probably wait about 2 seconds also.
If you were doing 6 messages a second then all of the times
would be much lower and so would the individual delays.
When you turn off the persistent instance, each new message
causes a client to look and see if there are any other peers
acting a servers... Since the messages are far and few
between, the client will elect to be a server (momentarily),
will find no work but it's own, will process it's own message
and leave. -- This is the automatic peer-server mode. It will
always work like this unless more than one message is being
processed at the same moment.
In peer-server mode, since there is nothing else going on and
no persistent instance to coordinate the operations, each
message will get processed as fast as the rulebase can be
loaded and then the program will drop.
When the persistent instance is introduced, it sets the pace
- and sicne there are no other messages, each client will
wait about 2 seconds (or half a second or so with the .stat
file contents you show) before it begins looking for it's results.
The server instance will also wait a bit before looking for
new jobs so that the file system isn't constantly being scanned.
Of course, if a burst of messages come through then the
pacing will speed up as much as necessary to keep up with the volume.
Hope this helps,
_M
On Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 3:38:52 PM, Dan wrote:
DH No, I followed your instructions exactly (and not for the first
DH time). I didn't add those extra values until today. Prior to
DH adding the AppDirectory value, the service was taking a minute to
DH scan emails; after adding it the scan time went to around 2
DH seconds. I can't get it any lower than that. Initially
mine was
DH set up exactly as you said, with only Application
containing the
DH path, authcode and persistent. Today after hearing no
suggestions
DH from the list, and based on recent list messages
mentioning the home
DH directory for the service, I looked at the srvany.exe
doco to find
DH out how to give it a home directory.
DH That's when I added AppDirectory. I also saw and added
DH AppParameters at the same time and added those as well,
though they
DH seem not to be needed.
DH
DH Prior to adding the AppDirectory value, I never got any
.stat file
DH or any .SVR file in my sniffer dir. After adding that value and
DH starting the service those files appeared.
DH
DH
DH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
DH Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:24 PM
DH To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
DH Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer taking a long time?
DH Dan,
DH There is no AppDirectory value on my servereither. The
DH Parameters key has only one value under it besides Default
DH which is Application, and it contains exactly what I provided
DH below. Could it be that you tried to hard to get everything
DH right by tweaking theseadditional keys?
DH Something else. Did you make sure that theSniffer
DH service that you created was started? No doubt it will work if
DH you follow those directions to a T, and there aren't any issues
DH with yourserver apart from this.
DH Matt
DH Dan Horne wrote:
DH I removed the AppParameters value and put the authcode
DH and persistent back in the Application value where it was before.
DH It didn't make any difference at all in the processing time,
DH still right around 2