You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@santuario.apache.org by André <An...@bdr.de> on 2007/10/29 15:07:55 UTC
Is there a difference in memory usage between Apache-Java-XmlSecurity and Apache-C++-XmlSecurity?
Hallo.
We use apache-xml-security java-implementation for signature and encryption on
the client and validation and decryption on the server.
On both sides we have "problems" with the hunger for memory of the java-
implementation. We use version 1.3, but I already tried version 1.4 and have
found no difference!
But this time I'm interrested in the server-side:
For example an signed and encrypted xml-doc of 50MB will need MORE than 600MB
to decrypt. With about 1000MB memory it works fine (factor: 20!).
In our scenario there can be many parallel requests for decryption.
Less memory needed would be fine!
Is the C++-implementation less memory-hungry?
Has anybody tried it out and can give me a kind of comparison result?
Thank's!
Bye, André
Re: Is there a difference in memory usage between Apache-Java-XmlSecurity and Apache-C++-XmlSecurity?
Posted by Raul Benito <ra...@apache.org>.
Hi Andre,
Your memory problems are DOM realated the XML-SEC library only needs 10MB to
verify any document.
So in order to improve it you must look using the expermiental STAX
implementation or the SAX one.
Regards,
Raul
p.s. I haven't take a deep look to the encrypt/decrypting part so perahps
we have some problems there.
On 10/29/07, André <An...@bdr.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo.
>
> We use apache-xml-security java-implementation for signature and
> encryption on
> the client and validation and decryption on the server.
>
> On both sides we have "problems" with the hunger for memory of the java-
> implementation. We use version 1.3, but I already tried version 1.4 and
> have
> found no difference!
>
> But this time I'm interrested in the server-side:
> For example an signed and encrypted xml-doc of 50MB will need MORE than
> 600MB
> to decrypt. With about 1000MB memory it works fine (factor: 20!).
> In our scenario there can be many parallel requests for decryption.
> Less memory needed would be fine!
>
> Is the C++-implementation less memory-hungry?
>
> Has anybody tried it out and can give me a kind of comparison result?
> Thank's!
>
> Bye, André
>
>
>
--
http://r-bg.com