1 / 16

A Study of the Impact of Compression and Binary Encoding on SOAP

A Study of the Impact of Compression and Binary Encoding on SOAP. Presented by: Alex Ng AWSA 2005 29 March 2005 Brisbane, Australia. Shiping Chen CSIRO ICT Centre. Paul Greenfield CSIRO ICT Centre. Alex Ng Department of Computing Macquarie University. Outline. Background SOAP

ernst
Télécharger la présentation

A Study of the Impact of Compression and Binary Encoding on SOAP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Study of the Impact of Compression and Binary Encoding on SOAP Presented by: Alex Ng AWSA 2005 29 March 2005 Brisbane, Australia Shiping Chen CSIRO ICT Centre Paul Greenfield CSIRO ICT Centre Alex Ng Department of Computing Macquarie University

  2. Outline • Background • SOAP • Binary XML • XML Compression • Experimental design • Result discussion

  3. Background • SOAP Web Services has been very successful in platform-independent application • Performance Characteristics of SOAP • Typical SOAP message size is significantly larger than binary format • SOAP performance is affected by implementation and the choice of encoding style • SOAP itself is not processor intensive • Concerns: • The verbosity of text-based XML, processor and bandwidth requirements • The use of base64 encoding for binary data

  4. Some Approaches in Optimizing SOAP • SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism (MTOM) • Recent W3C standard • XML InfoSet, WS-Security & WS-* compatible • Streams binary data as MIME message • Uses XOP to selectively encode individual SOAP elements • Binary XML • W3C XML Binary Characterization WG • Sun Fast Web Services • XML Compression • Schema Based: XMill & Millau • Dictionary Based: gZip

  5. Research Questions • How effective is compression as a way of improving the performance of SOAP Web Services? • How effective are the proposals for binary encoding for XML likely to be improving the performance of SOAP Web Services?

  6. Experimental Design: Test Messages

  7. Test Environment • Hardware: • 3GHz, • 1Gb memory, • 100Mhz Ethernet, • CeNTIE 1Gps WAN • Software: • W2003 Server Standard • ASP.NET 1.1 • Test Setup: • SOAP: ASP.NET Doc/Lic • Binary: .NET Remoting HTTP/Binary • gZip: SharpZipLib.dll • MTOM: translate our binary messages into MTOM format by hand

  8. Result: Message Size: Simple

  9. Message Size : Medium

  10. Message Size : Complex

  11. Latency

  12. Latency Summary (lightly loaded network) • SOAP performs as good as other binary-encoded alternatives in test messages with simple structure and small number of XML tags • SOAP is not far behind in other cases. • The number of XML tags and structures affect the performance of SOAP • The overhead of Base64 encoding is not significant (in latency) • Compression always slow in our situations

  13. Processor Time Per Request Compression Time not high in absolute value

  14. Simple Medium Predicted Latency (ms) Predicted Latency (ms) The Impacts of Compression : Simple & Medium Bandwidth Bandwidth SOAP SOAP gZip gZip Remoting Remoting 100Mbit/Sec 100Mbit/Sec 16 7 26 15 8 6 10Mbit/Sec 10Mbit/Sec 28 13 30 17 13 7 1Mbit/Sec 1Mbit/Sec 31 147 72 37 67 20 500Kbit/Sec 500Kbit/Sec 279 51 118 58 34 127

  15. Complex Predicted Latency (ms) The Impacts of Compression : Complex Bandwidth SOAP gZip Remoting 100Mbit/Sec 29 46 11 10Mbit/Sec 62 55 20 1Mbit/Sec 386 109 115 500Kbit/Sec 745 169 220

  16. Conclusion • Both compression and binary encoding are effective at reducing message size • Compression works best with complex and repetitive structure • MTOM is effective with large binary attachment but not for message with small number of binary elements • due to the overheads of MIME and XOP elements • Compression appears to be useful for all • Exception: the least compressible messages and the fastest network

More Related