[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: 2.1 & 2.2 statistics, and some odd behavior that needs to be examined.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Quanah Gibson-Mount

> This explanation really does not explain what I'm seeing.  By
> what you say
> above, simple binds & SASL binds should see the same
> performance issues,
> because the memory pool will be getting dirty either way.
> That is *not*
> what is happening, if you read through my post on this:
> SASL-based queries: 28 ans/sec average
> anonymous queries: 222 ans/sec average
> If what you are saying were true, I should have even *worse*
> performance
> with the anonymous queries, because they would be dirtying
> the memory pool
> faster.

That assumes that all else is equal, which it definitely is not. SASL/GSSAPI
Binds are inherently slower than Simple Binds, and the SASL security layer
adds encryption overhead to the protocol layer that is absent from the Simple
Bind case.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support