since we are talking preformance:
I'm using the stack with aspview. I ran my app through dotTrace and NH
Prof. There were 2 places I was able to really boost preformance.
1. building the NH configuration. To optimize this I implemented the
latest NH Facility build with PersistantConfigurationBuilder.
2. Too many NH selects. To optimize this I implemented some 2nd level
caching and Future<>, FutureValue<> and Load<> where appropriate.
neither of these deal with rendering.
also if you want to compare IoC or ORMs then that would be independent
of views as stated by Colin.
create a suite to compare Ado.net, NH, AR, LLBL, etc.
create another suite to test Windsor, Structure.Map, Spring, Ninject,
Unity, etc.
by comparing times on view engine, mvc, orm, ioc you have too many
variables that could be the bottleneck.
if you're testing the view engine the controllers should just send new
objects back to the view. This will provide consistent results. after
all the view engine does on thing. creates a stream/string of html.
anything more has not bearing on rendering.
public void Index()
{
PropertyBag["blah"] = large_array().ToList();
}
private IEnumerable<int> large_array()
{
for(var i = 0; i < 1000, i++)
yield return i;
}
On May 14, 12:03 pm, Colin Ramsay <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know you want to start off on the best possible footing but I think
> you are trying to optimise prematurely. In my time frequenting these
> lists I have *never* seen anyone complaining that the view engine is
> the slow part of their application. I also think you're testing
> approach is dubious, to say the least. Again, Windsor and NHibernate
> have nothing to do with the view. I understand what you're saying
> about pulling objects from Windsor, for example, but that's something
> that could be tested independently of this View Engine Comparison.
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Terry Massey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What I mean by render times; I guess I was a little vague. I mean from the
> > time the user makes a choice to the time the user see the result on there
> > end. So yes windsor will make a difference because performing any action
> > takes time. and if windsor is in the mix there is going to be time it needs
> > to figure out what object is being requested and so on and so forth. and the
> > reason for looking at nhibernate directly as apposed to AR I tend to have a
> > feeling that it will speed up performance because I see AR having more
> > Overhead. now the View I submitted is very simple and even on cassini both
> > engines tested so far seem to be doing very well no noticable time
> > difference. but more over I want to look more at the server what is it doing
> > on there after a million or so sessions and hits to the pages does one tend
> > to eat up memory what does the processor utilization look like what is the
> > maximum number of requests per second each one can process. and with the the
> > time to last byte. all of these things matter for an enterprise application
> > and from what I see MR is more than ready for that I am just looking to get
> > every last millisecond I can free up to give the user a better experience.
> > Terry
> > ________________________________
> > Return-Path:
> > <grbounce-qg156quaaad3g_8ucrr-gbnnwip8nz2w=tmassey=epiphanygs....@googlegroups.com>
> > Received: from mail-px0-f169.google.com [209.85.216.169] by
> > mx249o.mysite4now.com with SMTP;
> > Thu, 14 May 2009 08:38:07 -0700
> > Received: by pxi41 with SMTP id 41so544772pxi.31
> > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 May 2009 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by 10.140.133.10 with SMTP id g10mr407695rvd.8.1242315478211;
> > Thu, 14 May 2009 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by 10.106.201.4 with SMTP id y4gr9823prf.0;
> > Thu, 14 May 2009 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by 10.204.31.202 with SMTP id z10mr63194bkc.26.1242315471621; Thu,
> > 14 May 2009 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: from mail-bw0-f163.google.com (mail-bw0-f163.google.com
> > [209.85.218.163]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id
> > 14si7456bwz.1.2009.05.14.08.37.51; Thu, 14 May 2009 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: by mail-bw0-f163.google.com with SMTP id 7so1301948bwz.36 for
> > <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 May 2009 08:37:51 -0700
> > (PDT)
> > Received: by 10.204.68.15 with SMTP id t15mr2227476bki.139.1242315471140;
> > Thu, 14 May 2009 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> > d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
> > h=domainkey-signature:received:received:x-sender:x-apparently-to
> > :received:received:received-spf:authentication-results:received
> > :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:received
> > :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:reply-to
> > :sender:precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list:list-id:list-post
> > :list-help:list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere-env:x-beenthere;
> > bh=76uCDbxwBIYN+4F3k+U8FqFsthZpXwBsbpPwskJhDs0=;
> > b=SwtaVXb0QNYmlTDOk+eu/fd5yy0z89lY/VB3VN4N5SNox26Vn/F3prFFxiEMmPp4Vk
> > SUZB78N53QQVKxGGG67PXoj7t5HeJxm/MZB06KnEH3sPEX/DaNHunwm2gl6/BF0zuAZC
> > w35s41KtKKcKwZkQBEvy4JFbw6CUxpUwdODY0=
> > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
> > d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
> > h=x-sender:x-apparently-to:received-spf:authentication-results
> > :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to
> > :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:reply-to:sender
> > :precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
> > :list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere-env:x-beenthere;
> > b=kJU8QBgla5N7jDBa7PD01JqLnjMxGAVEDJDKOYZ312MFHvSKkSl3R0ksIB5G5nj6XU
> > BipRYA9pzWIS71t2UJUIuiCdXITz6KR3eU54dKKWzvfD9vioHAT4jMlLJ1jiRBuuixyh
> > pRUVVz3h/ubGf7fwkjpDF5pl4JakOtblcZ1t8=
> > X-Sender: [email protected]
> > X-Apparently-To: [email protected]
> > Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.218.163 is neither permitted nor
> > denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected])
> > client-ip=209.85.218.163;
> > Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
> > 209.85.218.163 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
> > domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > In-Reply-To: <16ed1637$393c846a$2f9f58...@com>
> > References: <16ed1637$393c846a$2f9f58...@com>
> > From: Colin Ramsay <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:37:31 +0100
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: MR View Engine Comparison
> > To: [email protected]
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > Sender: [email protected]
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-Google-Loop: groups
> > Mailing-List: list [email protected];
> > contact [email protected]
> > List-Id: <castle-project-users.googlegroups.com>
> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
> > List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]>
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> > <http://googlegroups.com/group/castle-project-users/subscribe>,
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > X-BeenThere-Env: [email protected]
> > X-BeenThere: [email protected]
> > X-Rcpt-To: <[email protected]>
> > X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_Pass, DK_Pass
> > X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: -10
>
> > How would Windsor and NHibernate have an effect on rendering times?
>
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Terry Massey wrote:
> >> All,
> >> I am working on the performance testing for the different view engines and
> >> have the NVelocity and Brail views completed and configured. after looking
> >> into the ASPView engine I am going to ask that those who want that one
> >> completed convert the following NVelocity view to ASPView syntax. I am
> >> working on the Spark Right now but I am running into a version issue where
> >> the trunk build of MR and AR I am using to generate the test just is not
> >> compatible. I also Plan on utilizing nhibernate and windsor as a
> >> comparison
> >> test as well to see the performance impact they have on render response
> >> times. for ASPView I may also need some assistance in configuration as I
> >> have yet to implement anything with that engine.
>
> >> <
>
> >> h3>Accounts list
>
> >> Account Code
> >> LevelID
> >> Account Desc
> >> Active
>
> >> #foreach($Account in $Accounts)
>
> >> $Account.AccountCode
> >> $Account.LEVELID
> >> $Account.AccountDescription
> >> $Account.ACTIVE
>
> >> #end
>
> > Thanks,
> >> Terry Massey
>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> I'm interested as well
>
> >> Juan Carlos Seguí
> >> Dpto. I+D+i - CAE, S.A.
>
> >> San Francisco de Borja, 18
> >> 46701 Gandía. Valencia.
>
> >>www.cae.net
> >> +34 962 872 010
>
> >> Terry Massey escribió:
>
> >> I agree that there isn't much time spent in the view engine but every ms
> >> counts on a enterprise site. when you have complex logic that must occur
> >> and
> >> the choice for a view engine is interpreted and takes an extra 10 ms that
> >> could be used else where for more complex logic it is well worth it to
> >> consider this. I have spent too much time on past projects trying to find
> >> ways to enhance performance to find that the big stumbling block was the
> >> backend dll's i had no control over. While MR provides so much more
> >> control
> >> over what is rendered and the wonderful end to Viewstate. I still want to
> >> make sure at this point in my project I am picking the best performing
> >> tools
> >> for the job. with a balance on the tells and technologies I wish to link
> >> up
> >> with and utilize. and the castle project provides that but the View engine
> >> is a plugable piece that I really want to make sure isn't going to be a
> >> plug
> >> in the flow.
>
> >> I will do something then If any one is interested I will share my results
> >> I
> >> will put together a series of simple views reading lists of data from a
> >> single db on a single server and do some benchmark of my own. if
> >> interested
> >> I will post my results with the tested views used. I may ask for some help
> >> once I get the NVelocity views complete. to make sure I am utilizing the
> >> other engine syntax correctly.
>
> >> I will even create a asp.net webforms to compete it against. if there is
> >> enough interest.
>
> >> Please let me know if there is interest in this type of performance data.
>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Terry Massey
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
