You are here: Home » Reply

Reply To: performance differences between itunes and nslu2

#9173

CCRDude
Participant

Hmmm… binary xml format? It’s a binary tree structure, but has imho nothing to do with XML at all, or you could call every binary format out there xml 😉

I also disagree with those two passes – why would you need to separate size calculation and data building? Two passes are even dangerous when you should get to the point when you do MySQL, since data could change between the first and second pass. In my protocol tests, I built data from inside out – inner packets with data first, then building the rest around them (or to speed up things, noting the position of the few count/size indizes that needed to be updated at the end).
If you actually do two passes, well, that’s giving me hope that iTunes access to Firefly may actually get faster with a bit of optimization 😀

And why the third one? 😯 If you have a stream of data prepared to send to the client, even in ugly daap format, you can pass that stream through a compression method without passing through the database again for sure? What has persistence of the connection to do with the need to pass the db again?

Are you doing *everything* on the fly with daap to preserve NAS memory? I just checked, the full /databases/1/items/ needs 6 MB uncompressed for 20.000 songs. To be honest, I would love to “waste” that memory (and its used for a very short moment anyway) even on my low-resource Kurobox for a tripple-speedup of daap 😉
And in the /worst/ case, if you don’t have that much memory, I would think that it still would be a lot faster to prepare the data to send storing it in a file (instead of buffer in memory), instead of passing the database thrice 😯

That’s no criticism on rsp though, I agree that your rsp is much better suited for streaming those control structures 🙂

Oh, but one more thing on those terms… while ajax may include xml, xml isn’t automatically ajax 😛