Re: Orbit Performance Questions
- From: "dou wen" <orbkernel hotmail com>
- To: <orbit-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Orbit Performance Questions
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 02:10:48 +0800
in some situation, the "2 parts" division is right, like oracle video server(OVS)'s OMN(oracle media network)
which is indeed based on corba 2.0 implemention, OMN is just for "control interface" which just need transfer little
control data to build a session between Set top box and OVS,once the session built, the video pump use
UDP to "pump" video data directly to client .
you can also evaluate the vertel 's e*ORB, which is a minimum corba for telecom application(www.vertel.com)
happy new year!
----- Original Message -----
From: "anil kumar" <email@example.com>
To: "dou wen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Orbit Performance Questions
Thanks for your response and Wish u very Happy and Prosperous
New Year 2002.
We need the ORB with best performance and minimum
footprint for our embedded software development.Basically we
are developing software for Our ATM Switch.We have made a prototype
using a commercial ORB and checked its performance.WE have found Using
CORBA in stead of socket is very costly(So performance is not
.But programming in COrba is quite simple.
So we need to have both the advantage better performance(Minimum
Overhead as compared to Raw Socket) and less Application development
What we are thinking of dividing our whole Software Development in 2
One performance critical and other not performance critical applications.
For performance critical application we can use raw socket programming
very efficient Corba Implementations.
For non critical application which are mainly Telecom Services (billing
Applications etc) we can use ORB which has more services supported in it
to make programming easy and minimum development time.
So i am evaluating different ORB for our different needs and build a
small prototype and compare performance.
] [Thread Prev