[Standards-JIG] Q about shorter tag names
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Sun Nov 20 12:34:49 UTC 2005
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:11:05PM +0100, Ulrich Staudinger wrote:
> So be it for now ... For future versions of XMPP (i.e. 1.1) the replacement of
> the long tag names should be considered nonetheless.
> Right now i am in a work group where we calculate and test with 500k concurrent
> connections in a jabber cluster. Those long tag names increase our traffic by
> the factor 4-5 approximately. We, in our scenario with the current specs, would
> produce about 6-10 Terrabyte of traffic per month, with compression propably
> something like 2-7Tb, with shorter tag names approx. 1-2.
Depending on what will actually be inside the packets, I believe you
will find that compression will yield far better results. If shorter tag
names will make your traffic shrink by a factor 5 as you state, you can
be assured that compressing regular XMPP (1.0) traffic will exceed this
I suggest you actually try to find a representative traffic exchange for
your application, generated by some test application, and then rerun the
test with JEP-0138 enabled. Please share your findings. If things would
be as you claim, we can always look into changing the protocol.
More information about the Standards