1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<!-- $Id$ -->
<title>TAO Performance and Footprint Tuning</title>
<LINK href="tao.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
</head>
<body>
<hr><p>
<h3>TAO Compile-time and Run-time Performance and Footprint Tuning</h3>
<a name="overview"></a>
<h3>Overview</h3>
<p>
<!-- We talk of real-time here and throughout this document I dont -->
<!-- see where we have talked about lower latencies one of the -->
<!-- important aspects of RT systems. I understand the term -->
<!-- "throughput" is used for latencies. My understanding is that -->
<!-- improved latencies can give better throughtput, but better -->
<!-- throughput doesnt necessarily mean lower latencies. Please -->
<!-- correct me if I am wrong -->
TAO is increasingly being used to support high-performance
distributed real-time and embedded (DRE) applications. DRE
applications constitute an important class of distributed
systems where predictability and efficiency are essential for
success. This document describes how to configure <a href
="index.html">TAO</a> to enhance its throughput, scalability,
<!-- Ossama, let me know if I am offtrack. Would it be better if -->
<!-- we mention this as "reduced latencies" instead of improved -->
<!-- latencies. I can make the change but thought would discuss -->
<!-- with you before jumping on to it. - Bala -->
<!-- Bala, aren't they the same? In any case Doug wrote -->
<!-- this. ;-) -->
<!-- Shouldnt be an issue though :-) -->
and latency for a variety of applications. We also explain
various ways to speedup the compilation of ACE+TAO and
applications that use ACE+TAO. </p>
<p>
As with most applications, including compilers, enabling
optimizations can often introduce side-effects that may not be
desirable for all use-cases. TAO's default configuration
therefore emphasizes programming simplicity rather than top
speed or scalability. Our goal is to assure that CORBA
applications work correctly ``out-of-the-box,'' while also
enabling developers to further optimize their CORBA applications
to meet stringent performance requirements. </P>
<p>
TAO's performance tuning philosophy reflects the fact that there
are trade-offs between speed, size, scalability, and programming
simplicity. For example, certain ORB configurations work well
for a large number of clients, whereas others work better for a
small number. Likewise, certain configurations minimize
internal ORB synchronization and memory allocation overhead by
making assumptions about how applications are designed.
</p>
<p>
This document is organized as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<!-- Ossama, do we call it optimizing throughput? Shouldnt -->
<!-- we mention it as Improving throughput? Because the -->
<!-- suggestions that we give seems to show only that. -->
<!--
Bala, by optimizing throughput aren't we improving it? I
prefer "optimizing" but if the general consensus is that
"improving" is better than I won't debate the issue.
-->
<!-- Neither am I :-). I dont know why the term Optimizing -->
<!-- looks odd to me. I think this way -- the user can -->
<!-- apply different optimization strategies that we have -->
<!-- offered through different ORB options. Using the -->
<!-- strategies that TAO offers the user, can optimize -->
<!-- applications to get better throughput or reduced -->
<!-- latencies, as the case may be. For the application -->
<!-- developer this could involve rewriting portions of his -->
<!-- code. He actually optimizes his application -->
<!-- constrained by the strategies that TAO offers.
<!-- Honestly, I dont think its a matter worth loosing sleep -->
<!-- over. Why did I start that in the first place. Late -->
<!-- realisation :-)-->
<a href="#throughput">Optimizing Run-time Throughput</a>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#client_throughput">Optimizing Client Throughput</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#server_throughput">Optimizing Server Throughput</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#scalability">Optimizing Run-time Scalability</a>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#client_scalability">Optimizing Client Scalability</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#server_scalability">Optimizing Server Scalability</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#compile">Reducing Compilation Time</a>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#compile_optimization">Compilation Optimization</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#compile_inlinling">Compilation Inlining</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#footprint">Reducing Memory Footprint</a>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#compile_footprint">Compile-time Footprint</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#runtime_footprint">Run-time Footprint</a>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><hr><p>
<a name="throughput"></a>
<h3>Optimizing Throughput</h3>
<p>
In this context, ``throughput'' refers to the number of events
occurring per unit time, where ``events'' can refer to
ORB-mediated operation invocations, for example. This section
describes how to optimize client and server throughput.
</p>
<p>
It is important to understand that enabling throughput
optimizations for the client may not affect the server
performance and vice versa. In particular, the client and
server ORBs may be designed by different ORB suppliers.
</p>
<a name="client_throughput"></a>
<h4>Optimizing Client Throughput</h4>
<p>
Client ORB throughput optimizations improve the rate at which
CORBA requests (operation invocations) are sent to the target
server. Depending on the application, various techniques can be
employed to improve the rate at which CORBA requests are sent
and/or the amount of work the client can perform as requests are
sent or replies received. These techniques consist of:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<!-- Ossama, I have my jitters on putting this here for the -->
<!-- following reasons -->
<!-- 1. AMI doesnt have many optimizations built in. Most of -->
<!-- the configurations that we mention below wouldnt work -->
<!-- with AMI. Say for instance we dont have a RW handler -->
<!-- for AMI -->
<!--
Yes, I know that. No claim was made that the ORB
configurations mentioned below should be or could be used
with AMI. AMI was only given as an example of how to
potentially improve throughput using programmatical means,
as opposed to using static ORB configurations.
-->
<!-- Agreed. With the little I know of users, they try to -->
<!-- mix and match. They tend to assume that programming -->
<!-- considerations can be mixed and matched with ORB -->
<!-- configurations. Hence my jitters. If we split things as -->
<!-- Dr.Schmidt suggests, I guess things could be better -->
<!-- 2.For long we have been interchanging the terms, -->
<!-- "Throughput" and "Latency". AMI is good for -->
<!-- "Throughput", you could keep the client thread busy by -->
<!-- making more invocations. I doubt whether that leads to -->
<!-- better latencies. I dont know. Further the ORB -->
<!--
No such claim was made, so what's the issue here? This
section is after all about improving throughput not
latency. :-)
-->
<!-- Aahn!! See we interchange the usage of Latency and -->
<!-- Throughput which doesnt sound like a good idea. The ORB -->
<!-- configuration options that we suggest are mainly for -->
<!-- getting low latencies. Throughput is an after effect of -->
<!-- it. -->
<!-- configuration section talks about options that improve -->
<!-- latencies. IMHO, lower latencies can lead to improved -->
<!-- If the options I wrote about improve latency and not
throughput that should certainly be corrected. -->
<!-- I guess that is where we need to start working. The -->
<!-- strategies that we talk gives lower latencies and hence -->
<!-- better throughput. They have been -->
<!-- implemented/designed/thought about as options that will -->
<!-- give low latencies. Making that change should help a lot. -->
<!-- throughput, but vice-versa may not apply. -->
<!-- Please correct me if I am wrong. I am willing to stand -->
<!-- corrected. -->
<b>Run-time features</b> offered by the ORB, such as
Asynchronous Method Invocations (AMI)
<!-- Ossama, are there other examples you can list here? -->
<!-- ADD BUFFERED ONEWAYS -->
</li>
<li>
<b>ORB configurations</b>, such as disabling synchronization
of various parts of the ORB in a single-threaded application
</li>
</ul>
<p>
We explore these techniques below.
</p>
<h4>Run-time Client Optimizations</h4>
<p>
For two-way invocations, i.e., those that expect a reply
(including ``<CODE>void</CODE>'' replies), Asynchronous method
invocations (AMI) can be used to give the client the opportunity
to perform other work as a CORBA request is sent to the target,
handled by the target, and the reply is received.
</p>
<h4>Client Optimizations via ORB Configuration</h4>
<p>
A TAO client ORB can be optimized for various types of
applications:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<b>Single-Threaded</b>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
A single-threaded client application may not require
the internal thread synchronization performed by TAO.
It may therefore be useful to add the following line to your
<code>svc.conf</code> file:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>static <a href = "Options.html#DefaultClient">Client_Strategy_Factory</a> "<a href="Options.html#-ORBProfileLock">-ORBProfileLock</a> null"</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
If such an entry already exists in your
<code>svc.conf</code> file, then just add
<code>-ORBProfileLock null</code> to the list options
between the quotes found after
<code>Client_Strategy_Factory</code>.
</p>
<p>
Other options include disabling synchronization in the
components of TAO responsible for constructing and sending
requests to the target and for receiving replies. These
components are called ``connection handlers.'' To disable
synchronization in the client connection handlers, simply
add:
</p>
<!-- Ossama, if we are going to ask people to use ST, -->
<!-- they could as well use ST reactor too. TAO uses a -->
<!-- reactor for ST and it would be better to use ST -->
<!-- Sure, but this particular section is about the
-ORBClientConnectionHandler section. We can certainly
mention that it is better to use the ST reactor. -->
<!-- reactor instead of TP. BTW, shouldnt we interchange -->
<!-- The TP reactor was never mentioned here, so what the
issue? -->
<!-- things here for example tell about RW and then go -->
<!-- to ST handlers? -->
<!-- Fine with me Bala. You know more about the this
option than I do. Go for it! :-) -->
<!-- No problem. I will start changing this once you -->
<!-- make your next pass -->
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBClientConnectionHandler">
-ORBClientConnectionHandler</a> ST
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
to the list of <code>Client_Strategy_Factory</code>
options. Other values for this option, such as
<code>RW</code>, are more appropriate for "pure"
synchronous clients. See the <code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBClientConnectionHandler">
-ORBClientConnectionHandler</a></code> option
documentation for details.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<b>Low Client Scalability Requirements</b>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
Clients with lower scalability requirements can dedicate a
connection to one request at a time, which means that no
other requests or replies will be sent or received,
respectively, over that connection while a request is
pending. The connection is <i>exclusive</i> to a given
request, thus reducing contention on a connection.
However, that exclusivity
<!-- Ossama, I am not sure I understand that using -->
<!-- exclusive connections could lead to reduced -->
<!-- throughput. As a matter of fact we have a cache map -->
<!-- lookup on the client side for muxed and that would -->
<!-- increase the latencies a bit :-). Exclusive takes -->
<!-- more resources and that could leade reduced -->
<!-- scalability, right?-->
<!-- Bala, isn't that what I said? Paraphrasing what I
said, if the client has low scalability
requirements then exclusive connections can be used
to improve throughput. Isn't that incorrect? -->
comes at the cost of a smaller number of requests that
may be issued at a given point in time.
<!-- May be I am confused :-). The above statement that -->
<!-- says "smaller number of requests" tries to convey -->
<!-- that we will have reduced throughput. What am I -->
<!-- missing here? -->
To enable this
behaviour, add the following option to the
<code>Client_Strategy_Factory</code> line of your
<code>svc.conf</code> file:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBTransportMuxStrategy">
-ORBTransportMuxStrategy</a> EXCLUSIVE
</code>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<a name="server_throughput"></a>
<h4>Optimizing Server Throughput</h4>
<p>
Throughput on the server side can be improved by configuring TAO
to use a <i>thread-per-connection</i> concurrency model. With
this concurrency model, a single thread is assigned to service
each connection. That same thread is used to dispatch the
request to the appropriate servant, meaning that thread context
switching is kept to minimum. To enable this concurrency model
in TAO, add the following option to the
<code>
<a href="Options.html#DefaultServer">Server_Strategy_Factory</a>
</code>
entry in your <code>svc.conf</code> file:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#orb_concurrency">
-ORBConcurrency</a> thread-per-connection
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
While the <i>thread-per-connection</i> concurrency model may
improve throughput, it generally does not scale well due to
limitations of the platform the application is running. In
particular, most operating systems cannot efficiently handle
more than <code>100</code> or <code>200</code> threads running
concurrently. Hence performance often degrades sharply as the
number of connections increases over those numbers.
</p>
<p>
Other concurrency models are further discussed in the
<i><a href="#server_scalability">Optimizing Server
Scalability</a></i> section below.
</p>
<p><hr><p>
<a name="scalability"></a>
<h3>Optimizing Scalability</h3>
<p>
In this context, ``scalability'' refers to how well an ORB
performs as the number of CORBA requests increases. For
example, a non-scalable configuration will perform poorly as the
number of pending CORBA requests on the client increases from
<code>10</code> to <code>1,000</code>, and similarly on the
server. ORB scalability is particularly important on the server
since it must often handle many requests from multiple clients.
</p>
<a name="client_scalability"></a>
<h4>Optimizing Client Scalability</h4>
<p>
In order to optimize TAO for scalability on the client side,
connection multiplexing must be enabled. Specifically, multiple
requests may be issued and pending over the same connection.
Sharing a connection in this manner reduces the amount of
resources required by the ORB, which in turn makes more
resources available to the application. To enable this behavior
use the following <code>Client_Strategy_Factory</code> option:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBTransportMuxStrategy">
-ORBTransportMuxStrategy</a> MUXED
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
This is the default setting used by TAO.
</p>
<a name="server_scalability"></a>
<h4>Optimizing Server Scalability</h4>
<p>
Scalability on the server side depends greatly on the
<i>concurrency model</i> in use. TAO supports two concurrency
models:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Reactive, and</li>
<li>Thread-per-connection</li>
</ol>
<p>
The thread-per-connection concurrency model is described above
in the
<i><a href="#server_throughput">Optimizing Server
Throughput</a></i>
section.
</p>
<p>
A <i>reactive</i> concurrency model employs the Reactor design
pattern to demultiplex incoming CORBA requests. The underlying
event demultiplexing mechanism is typically one of the
mechanisms provided by the operating system, such as the
<code>select(2)</code> system call. To enable this concurrency
model, add the following option to the
<code>
<a href="Options.html#DefaultServer">Server_Strategy_Factory</a>
</code>
entry in your <code>svc.conf</code> file:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#orb_concurrency">
-ORBConcurrency</a> reactive
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
This is the default setting used by TAO.
</p>
<p>
The reactive concurrency model provides improved scalability on
the server side due to the fact that less resources are used,
which in turn allows a very large number of requests to be
handled by the server side ORB. This concurrency model provides
much better scalability than the thread-per-connection model
described above.
</p>
<p>
Further scalability tuning can be achieved by choosing a Reactor
appropriate for your application. For example, if your
application is single-threaded then a reactor optimized for
single-threaded use may be appropriate. To select a
single-threaded <code>select(2)</code> based reactor, add the
following option to the
<code>
<a href="Options.html#AdvancedResourceFactory">Advanced_Resource_Factory</a>
</code>
entry in your <code>svc.conf</code> file:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBReactorType">
-ORBReactorType</a> select_st
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
If your application uses thread pools, then the thread pool
reactor may be a better choice. To use it, add the following
option instead:
</p>
<blockquote>
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBReactorType">
-ORBReactorType</a> tp_reactor
</code>
</blockquote>
<p>
This is TAO's default reactor. See the
<code>
<a href="Options.html#-ORBReactorType">-ORBReactorType</a>
</code>
documentation for other reactor choices.
</p>
<p>
Note that may have to link the <code>TAO_Strategies</code>
library into your application in order to take advantage of the
<code>
<a href="Options.html#AdvancedResourceFactory">Advanced_Resource_Factory</a>
</code>
features, such as alternate reactor choices.
</p>
<p>
A third concurrency model, <i>un</i>supported by TAO, is
<i>thread-per-request</i>. In this case, a single thread is
used to service each request as it arrives. This concurrency
model generally provides neither scalability nor speed, which is
the reason why it is often not used in practice.
</p>
<p><hr><p>
<a name="compile"></a>
<h3>Reducing Compilation Time</h3>
<a name="compile_optimization"></a>
<h4>Compilation Optimization</h4>
When developing software that uses ACE+TAO you can reduce the time it
takes to compile your software by not enabling you compiler's optimizer
flags. These often take the form -O<n>.<P>
Disabling optimization for your application will come at the cost of run
time performance, so you should normally only do this during
development, keeping your test and release build optimized. <P>
<a name="compile_inlinling"></a>
<h4>Compilation Inlining</h4>
When compiler optimization is disabled, it is frequently the case that
no inlining will be performed. In this case the ACE inlining will be
adding to your compile time without any appreciable benefit. You can
therefore decrease compile times further by build building your
application with the -DACE_NO_INLINE C++ flag. <P>
In order for code built with -DACE_NO_INLINE to link, you will need to
be using a version of ACE+TAO built with the "inline=0" make flag. <P>
To accommodate both inline and non-inline builds of your application
it will be necessary to build two copies of your ACE+TAO libraries,
one with inlining and one without. You can then use your ACE_ROOT and
TAO_ROOT variables to point at the appropriate installation.<P>
<p><hr><p>
<a name="footprint"></a>
<h3>Reducing Memory Footprint</h3>
<a name="compile_footprint"></a>
<h4>Compile-time Footprint</h4>
It has also been observed recently that using -xO3 with -xspace on SUN
CC 5.x compiler gives a big footprint reduction of the order of 40%.</P>
<P>Also footprint can be saved by specifying the following in your
platform_macros.GNU file: </P>
<P>
<code>
<pre>
optimize=1
debug=0
CPPFLAGS += -DACE_USE_RCSID=0 -DACE_NLOGGING=1
</pre>
</code>
<P>
If portable interceptors aren't needed, code around line 729 in
<code>$TAO_ROOT/tao/orbconf.h</code> can be modified to hard-code
<code>TAO_HAS_INTERCEPTORS</code> as <code>0</code>, and all interceptor
code will be skipped by the preprocessor.
<P>
<TABLE BORDER=2 CELLSPACING=2 CELLPADDING=2>
<caption><b>IDL compiler options to reduce compile-time footprint</b></caption>
<TH>Command-Line Option
<TH>Description and Usage
<TR>
<TD><code>-Sc</code>
<TD>Suppresses generation of the TIE classes (template classes used
to delegate request dispatching when IDL interface inheritance
would cause a 'ladder' of inheritance if the servant classe had
corresponding inheritance). This option can be used almost all the
time.
<tr>
<td><code>-Sa</code>
<td>Suppresses generation of Any insertion/extraction operators. If
the application IDL contains no Anys, and the application itself
doesn't use them, this can be a useful option.
<tr>
<td><code>-St</code>
<td>Suppresses type code generation. Since Anys depend on type codes,
this option will also suppress the generation of Any operators. Usage
requires the same conditions as for the suppression of Any operators,
plus no type codes in application IDL and no application usage of
generated type codes.
<tr>
<td><code>-GA</code>
<td>Generates type code and Any operator definitions into a separate
file with a 'A' suffix just before the <code>.cpp</code> extension.
This is a little more flexible and transparent than using <code>-Sa</code> or
<code>-St</code> if you are compiling to DLLs or shared objects,
since the code in this file won't get linked in unless it's used.
<tr>
<td><code>-Sp</code>
<td>Suppresses the generation of extra classes used for thru-POA
collocation optimization. If the application has no collocated
client/server pairs, or if the performance gain from collocation
optimization is not important, this option can be used.
<tr>
<td><code>-H dynamic_hash</code><br>
<code>-H binary_search</code><br>
<code>-H linear_search</code><br>
<td>Generates alternatives to the default code generated on
the skeleton side for operation dispatching (which uses perfect
hashing). These options each give a small amount of footprint
reducion, each amount slightly different, with a corresponding tradeoff
in speed of operation dispatch.
</TABLE>
<a name="runtime_footprint"></a>
<h4>Run-time Footprint</h4>
<!-- Doug, put information about how to reduce the size of the -->
<!-- connection blocks, etc. -->
<table border="1" width="75%">
<caption><b>Control size of internal data structures<br></b></caption>
<thead>
<tr valign="top">
<th>Define</th>
<th>Default</th>
<th>Minimum</th>
<th>Maximum</th>
<th>Description</th>
</tr>
</thead><tbody>
<tr>
<td>TAO_DEFAULT_ORB_TABLE_SIZE</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>The size of the internal table that stores all ORB Cores.</td>
</tr>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table></p><p>
More information on reducing the memory footprint of TAO is available
<A
HREF="http://www.ociweb.com/cnb/CORBANewsBrief-200212.html">here</A>. <P>
<hr><P>
<address><a href="mailto:ossama@uci.edu">Ossama Othman</a></address>
<!-- Created: Mon Nov 26 13:22:00 PST 2001 -->
<!-- hhmts start -->
Last modified: Thu Jul 14 16:36:12 CDT 2005
<!-- hhmts end -->
</body>
</html>
|
