Hi David! My tests are not so extreme, but also show a 30% increase of performance in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Of course, this is not yet the same as my real world application. I deployed my app to a local tomcat and fired up jmeter with 20 parallel threads. Then I simply just changed the owb jars to the old versions and got a significant performance benefit over our latest snapshot. I did run jmeter a few times before taking the measured values, so there is definitely no warmup problem. A real world app (with MyFaces-2.0.4) additionally uses the following features: * EL integration * openwebbeans-web * openwebbeans-jsf So I will first try to clone my test and access the values via EL. more to come ... LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 2/25/11, David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: heavy performance decrease in 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 5:39 AM > Spent a few hours poking at > performance numbers with Grinder and a simple test case > based on Marks changes to the interceptor pref test. > Seeing 2-3x increase in performance. > > Mark, I'm guessing your performance decrease is thread > related. Too many. Try dramatically decreasing > the threads allowed to execute at once. Seems the > magical number for me was 8 (2-4 per core). Compiled > some stats testing behavior against 1.0.x and 1.1.x at 1, 2, > 4, 8, 12 ,25 ,50, 100, 500, and 200 threads: > http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/owb-perf/index.html > > > -David > > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:38 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > Hope attachments work > > > > <PastedGraphic-1.png> > > > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > >> oh that looks really neat. > >> Will check it out. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: heavy performance decrease in > 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011, 9:47 PM > >>> > >>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Will do a few parallel unit tests > tonight. > >>> > >>> Side note, I like this tool for parallel > execution stats. > >>> > >>> http://grinder.sourceforge.net > >>> > >>> There docs don't have any screenshots, but > basically it > >>> looks like this: > >>> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/ejbd-client-performance.png > >>> > >>> You cook up your own test as you normally > would, then it > >>> will execute it in parallel however you like > and take > >>> samples of each "client" thread and process > and spit out > >>> updated stats. > >>> > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>>> > >>>> LieGrue, > >>>> strub > >>>> > >>>> --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > >>>>> Subject: Re: heavy performance > decrease in > >>> 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT > >>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011, > 6:02 PM > >>>>> > >>>>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Mark > Struberg wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> oh yes, and I experience some > 'stuttering'. > >>> Means the > >>>>> log scrolls, then it freezes for a > second, logs > >>> again, > >>>>> freezes, etc... > >>>>> > >>>>> You mean log as in log > >>> files? Definitely > >>>>> disable logging when doing any > performance testing > >>> or you're > >>>>> really just measuring your disk. > Improved > >>> logging > >>>>> could easily explain that sharp > decrease. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins > <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: heavy performance > decrease > >>> in > >>>>> 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 24, > 2011, 4:50 > >>> PM > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:32 AM, > Mark Struberg > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> hi folks! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Today I did run a few > jmeter tests and > >>> it > >>>>> seems that > >>>>>>> we have some serious bottle > neck in our > >>> code > >>>>> currently. The > >>>>>>> app just doesn't really scale > well anymore > >>> and > >>>>> performance > >>>>>>> is down to 20% compared to > 1.0.0 ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What aspects were you > measuring and how? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -David > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
