Re: [BUG] list implementation too slow.

Hi Oded & Andreas,

Oded Arbel wrote:
> 
> Hmm. yes - I do compile using checking malloc. I re-comiled using native
> malloc and it looks better - haven't had all the capacity testing done
> on it yet though. Is it just that - checking malloc is so slow to cause
> thrashing in code that do de-allocations ?
> 
> --
> Oded Arbel
> m-Wise Inc.
> [email protected]
> 
> Knebel's Law:
> It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes
> of statistics.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:26 PM
> > To: Oded Arbel
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [BUG] list implementation too slow.
> >
> >
> > >Hi list.
> > >
> > >Lately we've been doing some very high capacity testing on
> > Kannel , and
> > >found out some interesting stuff. mainly as queues (managed by lists)
> > >are filling up to over a few hundreds of messages, the boxes start
> > >thrashing.
> > >I think this is directly related to the List implementation
> > - it's just
> > >too sssslllloooowwww. when we have more then a few hundreds
> > of messages
> > >in the List, extracting one item can sometimes take anywhere
> > from 2 to 4
> > >seconds (!!!).
> > >
> > >Does any one have any information or experience regarding that ?
> >
> > I strongly disagree with this. My gateway at some point in time had
> > over 100'000 messages in the list and it dequeued as fast as it can,
> > sending out about 40msg/sec (and that was the limit of the SMSC, not
> > kannel).
> >
> > Maybe you run it in non native-malloc mode?

I did use native malloc. And yes, checking malloc is much slower. And
yes,
I would agree that Kannel's long term performance is about or higher
than
40 msg/s. It is difference between peak and long term performances that 
worries me.

Aarno