From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Sympa-To: caml-list@inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB89UVT9015502 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:30:31 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EADyD4E5auLfF/2dsb2JhbABDDqtbgXIBAQQBOEABEAsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcCF4dsArcKizsEmjaMJDg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,319,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="122550972" Received: from 0405ds1-vaer.0.fullrate.dk (HELO fw.fugmann.net) ([90.184.183.197]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Dec 2011 10:30:29 +0100 Received: from [10.0.10.34] (unknown [195.184.103.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fw.fugmann.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6852B40061; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:30:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EE08390.7090203@fugmann.net> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:29:52 +0100 From: Anders Fugmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Le Ferrand CC: caml users References: <4EE07A30.4090000@fugmann.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Validation-by: anders@fugmann.net Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Storing ocaml values outside ocaml's heap On 12/08/2011 09:56 AM, William Le Ferrand wrote: > Hi Anders! > > How're you doing ? > > Thanks for the suggestion. We actually have a solution in production > right now (www.besport.com ) that relies on > netshm. Unfortunately, the serialization / deserialization is killing > the performance : about 200ms for a full request against 7ms for a > simple Hashtbl lookup on our hardware. 200 ms seems too much - Nothing takes 200ms on modern hardware. not even on AWS :-) Maybe the system was swapping or some other noise polluted your statistics. Which serialization format did you use? ocaml's standard marshaling, or did your write your own? > ocaml-everlasting did solve this performance bottleneck but we get > unacceptable segmentation faults, and before debugging this library I'd > rather learn about other approaches :) What type of performance do you get with ocaml-everlasting? Regards Anders