Fig. 7. Response times for scaling parallel requests.
Furthermore, with the exception of POST (xml to json-ld) in the trials, the CIM is capable of converting payloads without significant statistical difference in the majority of situations. This exception happens when the payload is translated by the first CIM; while the remote CIM is translating, this exception does not occur; as a result of this discovery, multithreading in the first CIM is most likely impeding data translation.
Experiment 3: scaling a payload size
The GET (json-ld) and POST (json-ld) flows are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. In addition, a 1 Mb payload was synthetically enlarged to 9 Mb by 0.25 Mb pieces. Fig. 8 shows the times it took the CIMs to complete the GET and POST requests, depending on the size of the payload. The time it took to complete both queries in seconds is the performance statistic in this experiment. Finally, for security considerations, the CIM limits the size of the payload that may be exchanged to 9Mb; as a result, the maximum size in the experiment is the aforementioned.
Based on the data shown in Fig. 8, it can be determined that the CIM takes less than a half-minute to handle requests involving 9 Mb utilizing GET or POST requests; nevertheless, payloads involving 1 Mb require around 1 s to solve.
Conclusion: The CIM can handle payloads up to 9 Mb in a fair amount of time, as seen in Fig. 8. Note that there is a security constraint in place to prevent DoS attacks and server congestion caused by message overflow. Consider that most DR systems do not require huge volumes of data to be sent. at least not rapidly; instead, they must generally exchange tiny messages relatively quickly. As a result, even if the CIM takes seconds to respond to huge payloads, it can be said that it meets the data interchange criteria for DR systems in terms of size [49].