This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at osmocom.orgDear list,
Vadim requested to also compare syslog based logging. In theory, I would have expected it
to perform similar to gsmtap, given that it also doesn't do anything else but sending UDP
packets.
However, the performance looks slightly worse than with gsmtap:
@usecs:
[2, 4) 1167 | |
[4, 8) 2056285 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[8, 16) 8403 | |
[16, 32) 1880 | |
[32, 64) 6 | |
[64, 128) 6 | |
[128, 256) 0 | |
[256, 512) 2 | |
[512, 1K) 1 | |
[1K, 2K) 738 | |
[2K, 4K) 2 | |
[4K, 8K) 0 | |
[8K, 16K) 0 | |
[16K, 32K) 0 | |
[32K, 64K) 0 | |
[64K, 128K) 0 | |
[128K, 256K) 0 | |
[256K, 512K) 0 | |
[512K, 1M) 0 | |
[1M, 2M) 0 | |
[2M, 4M) 0 | |
[4M, 8M) 0 | |
[8M, 16M) 0 | |
[16M, 32M) 0 | |
[32M, 64M) 0 | |
[64M, 128M) 0 | |
[128M, 256M) 0 | |
[256M, 512M) 0 | |
[512M, 1G) 0 | |
[1G, 2G) 49 | |
Note the significant count of samples in the 1..2ms bucket. That's still quite a lot,
compared to the usual 4..8us.
Reminder: With gsmtap loggingwe had no log lines with more than 128us delay.
The results are reproducible, I just double-checked that gsmtap defintely outperforms
syslog in terms of the maximum delay/latency caused by logging.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge at osmocom.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)