Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation

Theo Zourzouvillys <> Wed, 29 April 2009 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631303A6B39; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.844
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGpTUCYCyu1R; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id BDEA93A6945; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([]) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKSfh2ollaZ/; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:47:48 PDT
Received: by with SMTP id e12so503793fga.15 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id 4mr820606fgc.66.1241020065188; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Theo Zourzouvillys <>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:47:25 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:,, sipping WG <>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:46:42 -0000

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani
<> wrote:
>  If you find any errors in the programs used to generate
> these results, please do let us know.

actually, your test program is *grossly* skewed in favour of the ASCII
implementation.  If you modify it slightly to behave in a way i'd
expect any developer to, you get (avg 5 runs on a crappy dell vostro

 Binary CLF:   0m6.947s
 ASCII CLF:    0m7.004s

If you take i/o out of the question too and set output to /dev/null,
then you get:

 Binary CLF:   0m0.610s
 ASCII CLF:    0m1.905s

which is far more realistic for high throughput servers which are
logging to an in-memory circular buffer or some shared memory

modified source:

note that i wrote it in all of about 120 seconds, so there may be some
errors in the output format, but my point stands :-)

 ~ Theo