Re: [PEPr] -1 for XML::XML_RPC2

Greg Beaver wrote: > Sergio Carvalho wrote: > >> Greg Beaver wrote: >> >>> Sergio Carvalho wrote: >>> >>> >>>> - Performance hit: I've proved it didn't affect performance. Get some >>>> numbers like I did. >>> >>> >>> >>> We've been using the client as an example, but the client is never where >>> the performance matters in XML-RPC. >>> >>> The performance hit I would like to measure is on the server end where >>> script startup time becomes significant due to the need to accept >>> hundreds/thousands of requests per minute on high volume sites. >> >> >> >> It'd be the same. Where the bulk of time in the client is in the HTTP >> request, the bulk of time in the server will be DB/disk access. The >> setup times will be similar (it's the same code), so will go around the >> 5ms (for my laptop) value. This is one or two orders of magnitude lower >> than the response time of a datastore (filesystem or database). > > > I took the time to design a server-side test for a hello world function, > and have some numbers. The test I designed is something like this: > > <?php > $HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA = xmlrpc_encode_request('test', 'Greg'); > require_once 'XML/RPC2/Server.php'; > class myserver > { > /** > * @param string > * @return string > */ > public static function test($a) > { > return "Hello, $a"; > } > } > $server = XML_RPC2_Server::create('myserver'); > for($i = 0; $i < 100; $i++) { > $server->handleCall(); > } > ?> > > As you can see, the test minimizes the effects of load time and smooths > out erratic compiler cache timing differences (before the loop, I would > get differences of 47 ms to 190 ms in run time). > > I designed 3 tests, one using xmlrpc-epi, one using XML_RPC2, and one > using Chiara_XML_RPC5. The fastest one, by far, is the xmlrpc-epi. It > ran in 143 ms. Next was Chiara_XML_RPC5, which ran in 877 ms, and then > XML_RPC2, which ran in 1531 ms. I ran the tests several times to make > sure that the values stayed the same. Profiling was done by Zend > Profiler inside ZDE. > > In other words, XML_RPC2's XML_RPC2_Value_* code is just under twice as > slow as Chiara_XML_RPC5, and about 12 times slower than xmlrpc > extension-based code. Chiara_XML_RPC5 is around 6 times slower than > xmlrpc extension-based code. Can you get me cachegrind profiling files, or something I can analyze? Alternatively, please send me the test cases and I'll reproduce the test. Cheers, -- Sérgio Carvalho