On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 11, 2004, at 9:06 PM, Shevek wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Extrapolated, that means that 22% of all my time sending mail is spent
on the CPU doing SRS.
Having read the figures a few times, I'm assuming that the 22% above
is a
typo made slightly funnier by context?
It wasn't a typo intentionally, but I am notoriously bad at arithmetic.
Ah, you said 2% throughout below. Sorry, I should have checked the
figures. I buy this.
Obviously an implementation aimed solely at performance could increase
this by a factor of 10 (probably). But that is 2%, which is a damn
Ah, but we will have better performance in the C version!
A factor of 10 is a pretty legit speed up. I'd be surprised to see a
speed-up of more than x100.
Like George mentioned earlier, we run MD5's on all MIME parts
(fingerprints) of all message on-the-fly (to hand back 55x's in the
SMTP session) when Anti-viral "mojo" is turned on and can still achieve
over 1x10^6 messages/hour. MD5 is surprisingly cheap.
We would have to do a little profiling to hit this on the head. I will
probably make a start this weekend. The SHA1 is done in XS/C, but the Perl
does do considerable pushing around of SVs that the C version can
presumably do in-place. I deliberately didn't mess with the order of
fields in the various conversions to make this possible.
We'll see in the next day or two. I expect you're right.
S.
--
Shevek http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg. http://www.gothnicity.org/