<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Yaniv Kaul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ykaul@redhat.com" target="_blank">ykaul@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div> is a graph that shows gwt-rpc performing slightly better than de-rpc. Memory consumption is about the same -- gwt-rpc is just a faster rpc implementation.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm wondering if we have any data about de-rpc vs. gwt-rpc under WAN conditions. With latency (say, 70ms, based on [1]) and possibly some packet loss (0.5% should suffice). </div><div>Y.</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://www.internettrafficreport.com/30day.htm" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr>internettrafficreport.com/<wbr>30day.htm</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We did WAN testing for the memory leaks, but not for the rpc change. (The ask got misinterpreted by me -- my bad.)</div><div><br></div><div>I'll get you some results for this this week.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div>
</div></div>