Re: What is the fastest sustainable web service response time?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Hector Santos, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. Peter Olcott wrote:

    > Is it possible for a very fast web service to consistently
    > provide an average 500 millisecond response time?
    >
    > Is the internet itself too slow making this goal completely
    > infeasible using current technology?



    What response time you mean, total or initial contact?

    When you talk of an application like a web service (presumably TCP
    based), I don't think you can guarantee any consistency for response
    time. However, it is reasonable to use an service-defined initial
    contact response time before considering it as a timeout.

    This might be defined by whether your client is a sync or async, In
    general, 25-35 seconds is the default timeout for a socket. When
    async, you have better control of the initial contact.

    You also didn't mention if there is size involvement in the timing.

    In principle, it isn't that the internet is slow, but there are many
    factors that can make it unreliable. But there is throttling that can
    be done too by the network provider.

    Reading your other input, at best, all you can do is set a limit
    perhaps on the initial contact time, if that concerns you. There is no
    way you would be able to get a persistent and consistent response time
    you are looking for. 500ms should be reasonable for the data size you
    are talking about. But how it is used is to define a timeout only.
    You can't control that a RTT (Round Trip Time) will be 500ms. Too
    many factors between end points.


    --
    HLS
     
    Hector Santos, Feb 23, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hector Santos

    r norman Guest

    On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:22:23 -0600, "Peter Olcott"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Hector Santos" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Peter Olcott wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is it possible for a very fast web service to
    >>> consistently provide an average 500 millisecond response
    >>> time?
    >>>
    >>> Is the internet itself too slow making this goal
    >>> completely infeasible using current technology?

    >>
    >>
    >> What response time you mean, total or initial contact?

    >
    >Total response time must at least average < 500 ms for the
    >specific application that I have in mind. It looks like with
    >only two packets of input and one packet of output this
    >might be feasible for US customers with servers also in the
    >US.
    >
    >>
    >> When you talk of an application like a web service
    >> (presumably TCP based), I don't think you can guarantee
    >> any consistency for response time. However, it is
    >> reasonable to use an service-defined initial contact
    >> response time before considering it as a timeout.
    >>
    >> This might be defined by whether your client is a sync or
    >> async, In general, 25-35 seconds is the default timeout
    >> for a socket. When async, you have better control of the
    >> initial contact.
    >>
    >> You also didn't mention if there is size involvement in
    >> the timing.
    >>
    >> In principle, it isn't that the internet is slow, but
    >> there are many factors that can make it unreliable. But
    >> there is throttling that can be done too by the network
    >> provider.
    >>
    >> Reading your other input, at best, all you can do is set a
    >> limit perhaps on the initial contact time, if that
    >> concerns you. There is no way you would be able to get a
    >> persistent and consistent response time you are looking
    >> for. 500ms should be reasonable for the data size you are
    >> talking about. But how it is used is to define a timeout
    >> only. You can't control that a RTT (Round Trip Time) will
    >> be 500ms. Too many factors between end points.
    >>


    You are forgetting that I connect through a dial-up modem at 1200
    baud!

    A round trip time of 500 ms is not reasonable for all users.
     
    r norman, Feb 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Olcott wrote:

    >> You are forgetting that I connect through a dial-up modem
    >> at 1200 baud!


    > Targeted at B2B , (Business to Business) Only. Non B2B users
    > won't require fast response rates.


    Half my customers are B2B and their users still use modems because
    that is still the most secured way to communication.

    --
    HLS
     
    Hector Santos, Feb 24, 2010
    #3
  4. Peter Olcott wrote:


    > The one specific application of my technology that I was
    > evaluating here may not be feasible for these clients.


    It isn't YOUR technology - you are using pre-existing methods and if
    you have to come here to ask about the feasibility "internet speeds"
    then really, I preferred not to deal with people like you who think
    they can take idea A, B and C with no new non-obvious contribution to
    claim patent D.

    What made the patent system stupid is the less focus on Markus
    Analysis of Patents which use to be the job of the USPTO before 1996.
    Now the burden is put on others to prove your frivolous claim is
    justified. The problem is that before if you KNEW there was prior art
    and intentionally neglect to consider it, you was considered a CRIME.

    Today, that is reduced that allows you to ADD prior art references
    after the fact.

    Again, you have a method, an series of steps. Nothing unique about
    that. You didn't even THE IDEA of OCR and that idea that you think
    you would get IP by reducing to problem to B2B which has unique and
    predictable constraints is LUDRICROUS and FRIVILOUS.

    GO AWAY PATENT TROLL!

    --
    HLS
     
    Hector Santos, Feb 24, 2010
    #4
  5. Peter Olcott wrote:

    > "Hector Santos" <> wrote in message


    >>


    >> GO AWAY PATENT TROLL!
    >>

    >
    > (1) You did not use the term "patent troll" correctly, this
    > term only applies to entities that have no intention of
    > commercialization.



    No, a Patent troll is one that frivolously patents the idea that the
    shortest distance between two points in a straight line.

    > (2) Find another technology in the world that can
    > consistently recognize 96 DPI character glyphs with 100%
    > accuracy if you can.


    The prior art history is too deep and predates simple google internet
    researching. You haven't been challenged yet. Try enforcing it on
    someone who has strong ethics and refuses to pay Patent Troll ransom
    dollars. Try enforcing it on Xerox for example.

    --
    HLS
     
    Hector Santos, Feb 24, 2010
    #5
  6. Peter Olcott wrote:

    > "Hector Santos" <> wrote in message



    >>>> GO AWAY PATENT TROLL!
    >>>>
    >>> (1) You did not use the term "patent troll" correctly,
    >>> this term only applies to entities that have no intention
    >>> of commercialization.

    >>
    >> No, a Patent troll is one that frivolously patents the
    >> idea that the shortest distance between two points in a
    >> straight line.

    >
    > Wrong!
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
    > Words and phrases do not mean whatever you want them to
    > mean, they only have meanings that are commonly agreed upon
    > otherwise communication would be impossible.



    Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to
    numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from
    the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated
    in law. [1]

    That said, you are a PATENT TROLL:

    - who takes pre-existing ideas with NO new non-obvious
    contribution, combines them to claim patent D.

    Unfortunately that is what current flawed patent guidelines
    has allowed since 1996.

    You obviously have no understanding on this concept
    (because you are a PATENT TROLL) and how it can be apply
    and in most cases, does not apply to preexisting
    implementators who do not or did not have the relaxations
    in patent laws to allow patentability.

    So even if there was NO patents, attempting to enforce
    your frivolous patent may not apply!

    - who patrols the technical forums, ask novice questions,
    gets answers and tries to get IP protection simply
    because it isn't in the books. And then has the
    cojones to tell people "Its my technology." - This is
    NEW WORST FORM OF PATENT TROLLS - YOU!

    > All that it takes to create something new under the Sun
    > (according to the patent office) is to combine two or more
    > pre-existing concepts to provide a substantial new benefit.
    > As long as this combination is not shown in published prior
    > art, it is patentable. In some cases it is patentable even
    > if the combination is shown in prior art, if the new use has
    > not also been shown.


    Classic mindset of a PATENT TROLL! Not a true inventor of new ideas
    but a leach of existing ideas.

    > I think that 20,000 hours worth of effort deserves some
    > financial remuneration.


    Try suing some companies and see how far you will get.

    This is my last note on this. You can have the last word - PATENT TROLL!

    --
    HLS

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
     
    Hector Santos, Feb 24, 2010
    #6
  7. Hector Santos

    Mihai N. Guest


    > As long as this combination is not shown in published prior
    > art, it is patentable. In some cases it is patentable even
    > if the combination is shown in prior art, if the new use has
    > not also been shown.


    "Patentable under the current law" is not the
    same as "worth a patent" and "legaly ok" is not
    the same as "morally ok"

    Also, a requirement is to be non-obvious "to one of ordinary
    skill in the art."

    To take a font, render the alphabet with that font at a certain size,
    then compare the resulting bitmap with a bitmap received from somewhere
    else is the most obvious (and naive) approach to OCR.
    ("naive" because it does not work too well)
    This is not the aproach taken by currnt OCR solutions because it
    was tried and does not work, not because is so creative that nobody
    thought about it.


    > I think that 20,000 hours worth of effort deserves some
    > financial remuneration.


    Even 8 hours deserve financial remuneration. Hell, even 10 minutes!
    But that should be based on the fact that someone on the open
    market is willing to pay for a product that brings some value.
    Not because of some patent that gets in his way of crating something.

    If I remeber well, we've been thru this before
    (in 1996, if I am not wrong), when I have tried to explain
    how what you want is not going to work too well.

    Now it looks like after 4 years you still have no product
    (visiting www.SeeScreen.com) and you are trying to maybe
    extort someone by dropping a patent in the middle of the road.




    --
    Mihai Nita
     
    Mihai N., Feb 25, 2010
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Meena Lalwani
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,156
    Kevin Spencer
    Aug 31, 2005
  2. flamesrock
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    548
    Hendrik van Rooyen
    Nov 24, 2006
  3. sachinkendale
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,441
    sachinkendale
    Aug 19, 2008
  4. Ananth Ramasamy Meenachi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    538
    Ananth Ramasamy Meenachi
    Feb 23, 2010
  5. Leo Violette
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,099
    Leo Violette
    Apr 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page