matt... just did an initial look. just a few comments for now... - were there funcational/load issues with the daytrader 1.2 numbers that were omitted? - was really surprised by the slow down in the web container primitives (probably has to do with the spec upgrade) and the jump in direct mode performance - thanks for the kudos in the acknowledgements - yes, we need to tag 1.2 and 2.0 so we can start the next turn of the crank on 2.X
chris On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a > gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This > is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers > that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but > the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a > comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we > need to release those monsters. > > This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to > final by the end of the week :) > > Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. > > Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. > > Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ > Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf > > Thanks > -- "I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may." - Tyler Durden
