SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

[frankgerlach]

>From my simple performance tests of SOAP it seems that it is about ten
times slower than binary object request protocols such as RMI, IIOP or
SimpleORB.
Is this also YOUR experience ?

[Mike Gaab]

"Aquila Deus" <aq*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

fr**********@gm ail.com wrote:

Potentially WRONG: Real-world requests will transfer much more data,
which produces a VERY lengthy SOAP message. SOAP is not just a huge
envelope around efficiently encoded data, but a lengthy envelope that
contains lenghty data structures.
Just look at the encoding of an integer:
<Integer xmlns="urn:vwse rvices">1</Integer>
That is 40 bytes for a single integer - about a factor of ten (actually
40 if intelligently encoded) worse than CORBA.
This means that multi-object messages are ALSO inefficient, because
each object/value if inefficiently encoded.

hmmm couldn't this be easily solved by compression??

http://www.osmoticweb.com/axis-soap-compression.htm

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Gaab]

"Mike Gaab" <mi****@montana .com> wrote in message
news:11******** ******@spool6-east.superfeed. net...

"Aquila Deus" <aq*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

fr**********@gm ail.com wrote:

Potentially WRONG: Real-world requests will transfer much more data,
which produces a VERY lengthy SOAP message. SOAP is not just a huge
envelope around efficiently encoded data, but a lengthy envelope that
contains lenghty data structures.
Just look at the encoding of an integer:
<Integer xmlns="urn:vwse rvices">1</Integer>
That is 40 bytes for a single integer - about a factor of ten (actually
40 if intelligently encoded) worse than CORBA.
This means that multi-object messages are ALSO inefficient, because
each object/value if inefficiently encoded.

hmmm couldn't this be easily solved by compression??

http://www.osmoticweb.com/axis-soap-compression.htm

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...s-sqzsoap.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Roedy Green]

On 29 Nov 2005 20:12:00 -0800, "Aquila Deus" <aq*********@gm ail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

<Integer xmlns="urn:vwse rvices">1</Integer>
That is 40 bytes for a single integer - about a factor of ten (actually
40 if intelligently encoded) worse than CORBA.
This means that multi-object messages are ALSO inefficient, because
each object/value if inefficiently encoded.

hmmm couldn't this be easily solved by compression??

Let's say you got 50% compression. You are down to 20 bytes per
integer verses 2. AND you have yet another cpu intensive step at both
ends.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Aquila Deus]

Roedy Green wrote:

On 29 Nov 2005 20:12:00 -0800, "Aquila Deus" <aq*********@gm ail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

<Integer xmlns="urn:vwse rvices">1</Integer>
That is 40 bytes for a single integer - about a factor of ten (actually
40 if intelligently encoded) worse than CORBA.
This means that multi-object messages are ALSO inefficient, because
each object/value if inefficiently encoded.

hmmm couldn't this be easily solved by compression??

Let's say you got 50% compression. You are down to 20 bytes per
integer verses 2. AND you have yet another cpu intensive step at both
ends.

I plan to use it with AJAX, so the client-side cpu loading isn't
important, and the compression rate should be much higher than 50%
usually (most data transfered will be xml tags...). Besides, if I dont
use SOAP, what else can I choose?? IIOP over HTTP?

[Thomas Hawtin]

Roedy Green wrote:

Let's say you got 50% compression. You are down to 20 bytes per
integer verses 2. AND you have yet another cpu intensive step at both
ends.

With a suitable encoding, the protocol can be compacted by 80% while
reducing CPU load.

http://java.sun.com/developer/techni...rvices/fastWS/

Tom Hawtin
--
Unemployed English Java programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/

[Dimitri Maziuk]

Bruce Wood sez:

.... Instead, the beauty of SOAP / WS is that I as a consumer can buy an
application server that is designed to run services written in Java
from one vendor and a client platform for .NET clients from another
vendor and the two work together.

Uh-huh. The beauty of windows is that a consumer can buy a windows
peecee and go whenever he wants to today by just clicking on the
"Start" button.

When I become the Evil Overlord I'll have every SOAPophiliac do 3
years of system administration in heterogeneous environment before
they're allowed to comment on "ease" of SOAP.

Dima
--
.... If you want to make sure you don't put a Pig in a List of airplanes and
have it fail at insertion rather than extraction, use
planelist.add(( Airplane)o) instead of planelist.add(o ). It's that easy.
-- Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes

[Jon Martin Solaas]

Bruce Wood wrote:

Ah. I see now that the OP cross-posted into a Java newsgroup. I hadn't
noticed that at first (the sins of using Google Groups). My apologies
to the Java folk for implying that "binary protocol = .NET"... it was a
problem of context. :-)

Exactly. And I just realized it was posted on a .net-group too :-) My
point was merely that big bad binary protocol isn't just a dot-net
thingie. RMI and EJB-remoting is just as binary in the Java world.

--
jon martin solaas

[Jon Martin Solaas]

Stefan Simek wrote:

Hi,

Well, this is an extremely non-real-word :) benchmark, that would work
for cases where the request takes zero time at the server side, which is
not a common case, or is simply caused by a design flaw.

You say that you get 140 SOAP calls / sec = cca 7 ms per call, and 1600
RMI calls = cca 0.6 ms. But should the request take 10 ms to complete at
the server, the difference would be 17 ms vs. 10.6 ms, less than
two-fold. With a 100 ms request, this would be 107 ms compared to 100.6
ms, a difference that's completely negligible compared to the benefits
provided by SOAP.

Just my 2c.

Or slightly rephrased - If the server takes forever to answer, the
protocol is irrelevant.

And if you consider message size and payload also, suddenly protocol
isn't that irrelevant again. Funny isn't it?

--
jon martin solaas

[Jon Martin Solaas]

Aquila Deus wrote:

I plan to use it with AJAX, so the client-side cpu loading isn't
important, and the compression rate should be much higher than 50%
usually (most data transfered will be xml tags...). Besides, if I dont
use SOAP, what else can I choose?? IIOP over HTTP?

Aren't most remoting protocol networkable?

--
jon martin solaas

[Mike Gaab]

"Jon Martin Solaas" <jo************ ***@jahoo.nei> wrote in message
news:dm******** **@bat-news01.banetele .basefarm.net.. .

Stefan Simek wrote:

Hi,

Well, this is an extremely non-real-word :) benchmark, that would work
for cases where the request takes zero time at the server side, which is
not a common case, or is simply caused by a design flaw.

You say that you get 140 SOAP calls / sec = cca 7 ms per call, and 1600
RMI calls = cca 0.6 ms. But should the request take 10 ms to complete at
the server, the difference would be 17 ms vs. 10.6 ms, less than
two-fold. With a 100 ms request, this would be 107 ms compared to 100.6
ms, a difference that's completely negligible compared to the benefits
provided by SOAP.

Just my 2c.

Or slightly rephrased - If the server takes forever to answer, the
protocol is irrelevant.

And if you consider message size and payload also, suddenly protocol isn't
that irrelevant again. Funny isn't it?

And what about routing, isn't that also a factor?
Isn't it really hard to benchmark something that is not deterministic?
(I know you can run lots of tests and that will tend to flatten some of the
peaks and valleys.)

Mike

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----