Hi there,


for getting a better performance we switched our Webservice from axis1 (1.4=

) to axis2(1.5 also tried 1.4.1). As of this change we also switched parts = of 
our database schema, and so we dind=B4t test performance until now. I wr= ote a 
DB transformer that created the new database out of the old one. So w= e had 
valid and a hughe amount of data. I did some tests, and discovered th= at a 
request that took about 1second on axis1.4 now takes up to 10 seconds =

- (the processing of my own code takes about 300ms). I tuned all logging st= 
uff on and discovered that the xml generation takes ALOT of time. The retur= 
ned object holds a list of about 3000 objects with each holding some string= s 
and 2 other objects holding 2strings and 1 int.



I serialized the Whole response to get an idea how big the response is. Thi= s 
way it say it=B4s 300kb.



The server and the client run on the same machine (faster) or on different = 
machines (slightly slower, still a 1gbit connection). So the 300kb should b= e 
no problem - even if the XML overhead is 5 time as big as the data...



Funny is, that Axis2 1.5 takes like 3 times longer than Axis2 1.4.1 does. B= ut 
both performances are not really acceptable. Especially because axis2 is=  
MEANT to be faster when it comes to bigger datasets.



Did anyone else have these problems and can help me out?



Some info that might be of any interest:



Running 5 services simultanously, where all oft hem use the same libaries o= f 
different versions (or the same). (Axis2 webpage sais this should be fine=

)

Running tomcat version 6.0

No additional Modules installed.

No other servlets running.

It=B4s not that axis is WATING when i request some lists, i can see the cpu=  
working in taskmanager.

I reinstalled tomcat

I redeployed  axis2 1.5/1.4.1

I tried to work with 1 service only.

I had a look if MTOM is turned on.

I tried with java and C# client.



If i forgot to mention something important, please ask me!



ALL help is greatly appreciated!



Greetings Mike Adelmann;

Reply via email to