[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:19:30 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3E3FD7B2.7040208@d...>
• References: <p04330103ba65690e85d6@[192.168.254.4]> <45951.213.123.177.163.1044369605.squirrel@w...> <3E3FD7B2.7040208@d...>

On Tuesday 04 February 2003 15:09, Rich Salz wrote:
> How much of the problem "XML needs to be compressed" is solved by just
> using GZIP transfer encoding over HTTP?

That's fine if bandwidth-on-the-wire is your problem, but not if time/space 
complexity at the endpoints is; gzip takes big data structures and a fair 
amount of CPU.

My machine at home that could max out the 10Mb/sec network link with ONC RPC 
requests (the null procedure, to just test architectural overheads), at 100% 
CPU utilisation on the gzipping, did (I think) something like 1MB (8Mb)/sec 
of gzipping from a file on disk to another file on disk.

Eg, the machine would have no hope of keeping up with the network at full 
load as a gzip-based XML web services / RPC server, even if the processing 
time required for the application logic was not the bottleneck - and I 
thought it was in all these XML apps, right? :-)

> 	/r$

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• References:
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller@o...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misunderstanding of XML Schema ?
• Next by Date: RE: misunderstanding of XML Schema ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread