rlm_rest performance / thread usage
a.cudbardb at freeradius.org
Wed Sep 13 03:24:45 CEST 2017
> On 12 Sep 2017, at 19:18, Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Бенджамин Томпсон <b.thompson at latera.ru> wrote:
>> I would like to ask whether there is likely to be any performance
>> difference beteween these two solutions. rlm_perl is performing well for us
>> and as I understand it runs in a multithreaded mode whereby multple perl
>> instances can be created by multiple server threads. I would like to ask
>> whether the rlm_rest module is likely to offer as good as or better
>> performance as we are currently getting with rlm_perl.
> I would say that the REST module has better performance than Perl. For the simple reason that it's doing less work.
It also does things right out of the box, like connection caching. With Perl and Python that was always a bit of a pain because of needing data to persist between requests.
> i.e. it's *only* doing REST. The Perl module has an entire Perl interpreter, overhead, etc.
Even faster in v4.0.x as we've switched to the async libcurl interface.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
More information about the Freeradius-Users