rlm_rest performance / thread usage
b.thompson at latera.ru
Wed Sep 13 08:04:59 CEST 2017
2017-09-13 4:24 GMT+03:00 Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb at freeradius.org>:
> > 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>
> >> 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.
Thanks Alan and Arran for your replies.
More information about the Freeradius-Users