[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I've created one online application used by many millions of people that
processed thousands of messages per second (probably about 2500-6000),
with database retrievals for many of those at up to 1700 per second, and
simultaneous control of over 300,000 remote clients, with a single
process on a single processor of a 96Mhz HPUX server.
A couple years later I architected and helped build an application that,
on a 4 processor high-end Sun Sparc system was able to do a transaction
every 2 seconds at full speed. I knew the latter would be slow for a
variety of reasons and began working on better architectures that led to
esXML, i.e supported the elegance and sophistication of the latter
application with the efficiency approaching the former. These two
extremes represent, to a certain extent, the difference between
different extremes in overhead, abstraction, communication model, etc.
Processing overhead, including the major components of parsing / object
creation / data copies / serialization, is not a 'future problem'. It
has always been a problem. Network bandwidth is not much of an issue,
just like disk storage isn't much of an issue anymore. Certainly it
would be helpfull, and for certain corners of the market like mobile
phones, more usefull, although less than it used to be. The scarce
resource is time. Anything that eats time is bad. This could be
bandwidth usage, CPU, memory, or suboptimal communication and semantic
models.
sdw
David Megginson wrote:
> My memory gets hazy sometimes, but I think I remember the networking
> people
> complaining just as much a decade and a half ago about the
> inefficiencies of
> IP, TCP, etc. I had to fight hard as late as 1993-94 to get a university
> lab to use TCP/IP because the administration had been convinced by their
> vendor (Novell) that TCP/IP was too slow for serious work.
>
> I think that we might be at the same place right now with XML. The
> self-annointed analysts are telling the networking people that they'll
> have
> to handle enormous volumes of XML network traffic in a few years, and the
> networking people are freaking out over hypothetical future problems like
> verbosity and parsing time. I don't think that we have much of a clue
> yet
> whether (a) there actually will be much XML network traffic over the next
> few years, or (b) what it might look like, so any optimization is waaaay
> premature.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
--
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
begin:vcard
fn:Stephen Williams
n:Williams;Stephen
email;internet:sdw@lig.net
tel;work:703-724-0118
tel;fax:703-995-0407
tel;pager:sdwpage@lig.net
tel;home:703-729-5405
tel;cell:703-371-9362
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
