Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time
Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Wed, 28 September 2016 11:35 UTC
Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A339B12B43E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jdz0Nh8xEMun for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1527E12B0E9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2CbAQCEqutX/7t/ZZYNTx4GDIM/AQEBAQF1dga2P4QVIIV+AoIvAQIBAQEBAQKFZwEBBCNmCxgCAiYCAlcZiFaxS2eNAwEBCAIlgQaFMYRUhC5igjiCWgWZdlOFVIwAjTCIXheDd4N9hW9ghwgBAQE
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.142]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2016 21:05:16 +0930
Message-ID: <1475062513.2191.6.camel@biplane.com.au>
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:35:13 +1000
In-Reply-To: <E15D3367-B8CE-4D55-A5F8-A6578A4B097F@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <CAMpwFvo-J1CMVvDK16L034dPquqBeKq=5LAMgw0ZNCrF8pQMzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1475051400.2256.62.camel@biplane.com.au> <E15D3367-B8CE-4D55-A5F8-A6578A4B097F@thehobsons.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/cZtJfqDY5iEdPbNU9Tj_gWH6Fso>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:35:29 -0000
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 12:21 +0100, Simon Hobson wrote: > Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote: > > Not quite sure what you mean, but there would seem to be four > > obvious methods to look at the protocol and compare before and > > after: > > I can't help thinking that the overhead of handling just one extra > option would be completely lost in the natural variation in timing. Yes - but I just didn't really know the OP meant. I think your interpretation - that the OP wanted to compare the processing time with and without a particular option - is probably correct. As is your thought that the processing cost for one option is probably negligible compared to other overheads. On the other hand, we don't know what server is being used or what the special option is. Maybe it makes more sense than we think. Maybe the OP is just being diligent and making no assumptions about the effects of adding this option. We run the Nominum DCS server, which has hooks for user-supplied code, and it's certainly possible for that to chew a lot of CPU if we get it wrong. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
- [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Hans Christian Silaban
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Karl Auer
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Simon Hobson
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time Karl Auer
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Process Time sthaug