Try adding HtmlEncode to all the variables output to see if there is any difference.
I think Brail is compiled, did you request the page at least one time before running the benchmark? 2009/5/14 Terry Massey <[email protected]>: > ok all I have some interesting pleminary results I am actualy shocked with > these results. > > Each ran for 15 min. > with 25 Threads each thread with 5 clients > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB > Avg Auth Query > Brail 29856 834.57 835.13 No > No > Web Forms 29810 832.97 834.32 No > No > NVelocity 29933 834.33 834.95 No > No > > > so based on the results here > NVelocity can handle slightly more load than Web forms and Brail. > WebForms is slightly faster at providing the results. but generates 10x the > content output > Brail over all is slower which I didnt expect at all. I expected it to be > faster. > > strange results require me to do more extensive testing will run each for 8 > hours. will have better results in a few days. with just the basics. and > better isolation of the database. > > Over all I had the same memory utlization and processor usage between each > of the view engines. > > > > > ________________________________ > Return-Path: > <grbounce-qg156quaaad3g_8ucrr-gbnnwip8nz2w=tmassey=epiphanygs....@googlegroups.com> > Received: from yx-out-2122.google.com [74.125.44.25] by > mx249o.mysite4now.com with SMTP; > Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:49 -0700 > Received: by yx-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 33so222668yxl.5 > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by 10.151.68.13 with SMTP id v13mr249907ybk.22.1242320499511; > Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by 10.107.155.38 with SMTP id h38gr9829pro.0; > Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by 10.204.77.100 with SMTP id f36mr65081bkk.13.1242320496398; Thu, > 14 May 2009 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from mail-bw0-f218.google.com (mail-bw0-f218.google.com > [209.85.218.218]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id > 13si16991fxm.0.2009.05.14.10.01.35; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by mail-bw0-f218.google.com with SMTP id 18so1422991bwz.3 for > <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:35 -0700 > (PDT) > Received: by 10.103.171.6 with SMTP id y6mr1671794muo.110.1242320494751; > Thu, 14 May 2009 10:01:34 -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 > :dkim-signature:domainkey-signature:mime-version:content-type > :content-transfer-encoding:received:in-reply-to:references:date > :message-id:subject:from:to:reply-to:sender:precedence:x-google-loop > :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-unsubscribe > :x-beenthere-env:x-beenthere; > bh=iOIySmQAah/3TFiJJmTKFUrW/sE3uYw+znjcBnxnRNk=; > b=0XKHIJr8W4mi+aBNUm6i/XIXoFQPbsJjs9ghwcg/fixR5zC89QfFaXtbFkJPm6DCuS > WW47WKRuplISeMOv8KvMtyyCnMAhEc2GldgCmY/FjdUA7z7ML7edzbrmsbiF2WBKA8gJ > lTHrkV65JV8lkih4H3RDrniarEWIAYaWY2Rzc= > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; > d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; > h=x-sender:x-apparently-to:received-spf:authentication-results > :dkim-signature:domainkey-signature:mime-version:content-type > :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id > :subject:from:to:reply-to:sender:precedence:x-google-loop > :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-unsubscribe > :x-beenthere-env:x-beenthere; > b=MyfD78QeMDLK/FMJvdXTsXxJ0Nx8b+HxWwHNb5REBy39z3EQBMB+DWQygq0cvIFbXI > nyWRIOnU2vyJaRx7seXAEC74jGviGPt3eb7oUWnlUr5ProLnKpGvRfmvMgfopltkPHGL > stnwaQPqSrV0IeXiuyHgLW2nCTN0PP6qjFFSY= > X-Sender: [email protected] > X-Apparently-To: [email protected] > Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates > 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.218; > Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of > [email protected] designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) > [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected] > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; > h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references > :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; > bh=dY/g/v/8FAOlpBSIbBe2fGOMJh2O5+tXJHj8L5ZQdt4=; > b=XeYl6s6cKikE9zrxsyPcDBK6pfzkWJPQ0/XU8zHNn0I2G4imIlhDS9Sv5yjbXrJ3sb > yWQ1Icz4MimW3pk0LGO+Fz/FrVLvNtbZVvfWOmWYRxxlS1FR0fzqiUq3OD7rkA5UKUHh > n+oMogOIUB4nrlDgMc1Tgs3hfxZQjAbEeej90= > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; > h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to > :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; > b=tvPY1eFpWTj/E5y3Ksr2x+yvXtEmYhYBNNziVDPsZQ1tN2az2HMCzpZS2TjPc9Q1G/ > 0QJwXWsxSb+8AubhjtVgntVMLMQ37k3Tq4s5xgWUi5I7hZjqeA5hkWTQQ6wr0qomXLG6 > 6Lbgwpk07n6+v1o+VuGmw1bKvpmnjTjy2gWl8= > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > References: <2c347061$3e0f04c6$221a47...@com> > <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:01:34 +0100 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: MR View Engine Comparison > From: Ricardo Lopes <[email protected]> > 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: Bayesian Filtering, SPF_Pass, DK_Pass > X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: 0 > > > Lets say you are invoking a method on the view engine, for example the > HtmlHelper.HtmlEncode, NVelocity probably uses reflection to call the > method, ASPView or other of the view engines that compiles the view > could probably use a different approach that significantly improve > response times. > > However as I previously said, the cost of the view engine probably > shouldn't be more that 10% of the total time of the request for really > simple actions or less that 1% for normal or complex actions. > > 2009/5/14 Colin Ramsay : >> >> 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 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: >>> >>> 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 ; 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 >>> ; 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$2f9f58...@com> >>> From: Colin Ramsay >>> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:37:31 +0100 >>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: MR View Engine Comparison >>> To: [email protected] >>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>> Sender: [email protected] >>> Precedence: bulk >>> X-Google-Loop: groups >>> Mailing-List: list [email protected]; >>> contact [email protected] >>> List-Id: >>> List-Post: >>> List-Help: >>> List-Unsubscribe: >>> , >>> >>> X-BeenThere-Env: [email protected] >>> X-BeenThere: [email protected] >>> X-Rcpt-To: >>> X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_Pass, DK_Pass >>> X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: -10 >>> >>> >>> How would Windsor and NHibernate have an effect on rendering times? >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Terry Massey wrote: >>>> All, >>>> I am working on the performance testing for the different view engines >>>> and >>>> have the NVelocity and Brail views completed and configured. after >>>> looking >>>> into the ASPView engine I am going to ask that those who want that one >>>> completed convert the following NVelocity view to ASPView syntax. I am >>>> working on the Spark Right now but I am running into a version issue >>>> where >>>> the trunk build of MR and AR I am using to generate the test just is not >>>> compatible. I also Plan on utilizing nhibernate and windsor as a >>>> comparison >>>> test as well to see the performance impact they have on render response >>>> times. for ASPView I may also need some assistance in configuration as I >>>> have yet to implement anything with that engine. >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> h3>Accounts list >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Account Code >>>> LevelID >>>> Account Desc >>>> Active >>>> >>>> #foreach($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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > > > > -- > > Ricardo Lopes > > > -- Ricardo Lopes --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
