IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 04 May 2009 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CA53A63C9 for <sip-ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WNiKfDmJbf+Z for <sip-ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA373A659C for <sip-ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.231] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n44JwcxA056381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 May 2009 14:58:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:58:38 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 1.0b11 (Macintosh/2009041623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
References: <WNQHYTPgGvwQ.rzn0RkdD@nylon.softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <WNQHYTPgGvwQ.rzn0RkdD@nylon.softarmor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" <sip-ops@ietf.org>, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation
X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <sip-ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-ops>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:57:17 -0000

Dean Willis wrote:
> Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over structured ASCII.

I'll correct this slightly: binary offers only marginal performance over 
*properly* structured ASCII. I argue that the Apache log format doesn't 
qualify for this description. (I say this after having to deal with 
processing relatively large Apache logs, and suffering from the vast 
quantities of time such processing takes).

I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields to 
the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I could 
re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII number 
representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that it 
terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email