What is the fastest sustainable web service response time?
in [MFC]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Feb 2010 23:25 "r norman" <r_s_norman(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:rp79o5p9lgokhgk5q8fb8ko7o6m9sqf9da(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:22:23 -0600, "Peter Olcott" > <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >> >>"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in >>message >>news:ebU9CPMtKHA.3408(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> 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. Targeted at B2B , (Business to Business) Only. Non B2B users won't require fast response rates.
From: Hector Santos on 23 Feb 2010 23:30 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
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Feb 2010 23:30 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:eukqGOQtKHA.1440(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in >> message news:OUGJ$UMtKHA.5976(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> >>>> I have made major enhancements to my technology and am >>>> considering trade secret rather than patent protection, >>>> thus I am trying to test the feasibility of selling my >>>> technology as a web service that performs with the >>>> response time in the ball park of locally installed >>>> software. >>> >>> Come on. I'm sure you haven't invented anything novel >>> that hasn't been in place for 30+ years. Do you >>> honestly think you are the first with fast internet >>> transaction needs. Come on Peter. >>> >> >> My technology is the only technology in the world that >> can consistently recognize character glyphs at 96 DPI >> screen resolutions with 100% accuracy. I already have a >> patent on this. > > Well, the devil is in the details. Whats your patent #? > Does it cover Europe and Asia? > Direct Link to the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7046848.PN.&OS=PN/7046848&RS=PN/7046848 I only covered the US because the US consumes 1/2 the world's software, and patents for the other half of the world would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. See also www.OCR4Screen.com > OCR technology have existed for decades and the accuracy > depends on many factors. My first company (OptiSoft) in > the 80s focused on "electron file cabinets" called > OptiFile and OCR was a big part of it. > It was part of the ODSARS market (Optical Document Storage > and Retrieval System). In my 2nd and current company, I > termed "SFI" Speech Friendly Interfacing back in the > product area where the #1 market was for the visual > impaired. Our application was for the Offline Mail Market > (Silver Xpress) with advanced SFI methods. There were > some well known vendors in the actual character to speech > hardware market, such as GW Micro (http://www.gwmicro.com) > and their original "Vocal Eyes" hardware. Now its called > Windows-Eyes. > > But overall, there are hundreds of the big boys in this > market many with patents and I'm fairly sure that when > dealing with simple character glyphs represents the > simplest of solutions. Text based OCR is simple. I doubt > you can get 100% accuracy when there a mesh or human > scripting. At best, you have a "method" in application > using preexisting methods where 100% accuracy might be > possible but only because the data is deterministic in > nature and fairly easy to predict. > > Again, the devil is in the details. > > In any case, personally, after the relaxation of > patentability in 1996 and in in 2000, created many > frivolous patents of simple, obvious ideas and re-issuing > of old ideas claimed to be new. I think you should > recognize the oddness of you talking about patents and > "IP" protection here in open public technical forum areas > while at the same time you are posting really novel > questions anyone with Internet Programming 101 knowledge > should know. A quick search shows you done this in the > past with other related stuff. IMHO, it is really not > professional for you to be doing this. > > The next time, you might not find might input for your > questions or at the very least, not feed you any ideas > that might make you THINK it is > something you can take and incorporate into some frivolous > patent. > > -- > HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Feb 2010 23:36 "Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:da99o5dms3ejscslbv534coacah9bjj07e(a)4ax.com... > Searching US Patents Text Collection... > > > Results of Search in US Patents Text Collection db for: > "peter olcott": 0 patents. > > No patents have matched your query http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=olcott&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=peter&FIELD2=INNM&d=PTXT
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Feb 2010 23:40
"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:OzFNtoQtKHA.3904(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > 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 The one specific application of my technology that I was evaluating here may not be feasible for these clients. |