[bind10-dev] Performance of Various Receptionist Designs

[David W. Hankins]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:41:49AM +0100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> I've added another report to ticket 245 (http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/245) on measurements of the various receptionist designs.  As before, comments on both methodology and results are welcome.

I think in the 'Contractor' you have modeled, that the 'Intermediary'
does not perform a significant amount of work before simply
transmitting the reply?  So it is really not all that surprising that
its only effect is to slightly increase RTT; it is just an extra step.

But I am curious how much the advantage/disadvantage would change if
both the 'Intermediary' and 'Receptionist' (just for RX packets) were
to perform some packet decoding/encoding ("DECCO?") service.  For
example, the 'Receptionist' could discard received packets with a
bogus encoding, and otherwise pass on the decoded markup.

I'm not sure if there's a way to model that, but I'm curious.

I'm also very happy to hear that there doesn't seem to be a
significant penalty in the receptionist model, because I think we
are going to need/want a "packet sprinkler system" to direct stateful
operations to specific nodes.

-- 
David W. Hankins	BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer		There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		http://bind10.isc.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/attachments/20100804/f29e4d28/attachment.bin>