Have you considered the IBM jdk v1.1.8? It is much faster than blackdown. Our setup is apache-1.3.12, jserv-1.1 on redhat-6.0 > -----Original Message----- > From: ECS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 8:00 PM > To: ECS > Subject: ECS Digest #205 - 03/24/00 > > > ECS Digest #205 - Friday, March 24, 2000 > > Performance Question > by "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Simon Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Simon Allaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Stephan Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Glen Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "jon *" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Re: Performance Question > by "jon *" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Performance Question > From: "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:13:26 -0700 > > Hi folks, I've just recently downloaded ECS and started > trying to use it > as a cleaner alternative to what is going to be some really ugly JSP > code, and my first impressions are very good. It is so much > cleaner than > JAVA embedded in HTML (JSP) or HTML embedded in JAVA > (out.println("<TAG>") that I'm all but sold. > > Here's the catch... > > We're generally quite concerned with the performance of our > applications > and new technologies don't generally get the nod unless they compare > reasonably well with old ones. At the moment, I'm testing ECS against > some functionally similar JSP code to generate a somewhat large table > (1000 rows by 10 columns) and JSP is about 10x faster, which > is going to > make ECS a really hard sell. > > First thoughts on this problem were that the number of objects being > instantiated for this table, on the order of 10,000 or so, > was likely a > big part of the problem. However, a simple test shows that > the output or > actual generation of the HTML takes far longer than instantiating the > required ECS objects, something like 10x longer generating than > instantiating. > > So, first question: does this sound reasonable? > > And, second question: how can I improve the HTML generation time by a > factor of 10 or so? > > > I haven't dug very deep into the code yet to see what's going > on and I'm > hoping someone can shed some light on this. Here's my test program and > results, I hope they help! > > > import java.io.*; > > import org.apache.ecs.*; > import org.apache.ecs.html.*; > > public class newTimer { > > public static void main(String args[]) { > long start; > long end; > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > int count = 1000000; > > for (int i=0; i<count; i++) { > String s = new String("foo"); > } > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > System.out.println("Created " + count + " Strings in " > + (end - start) > + "ms"); > > Html page = new Html(); > Head head = new Head(); > Body body = new Body(); > page.addElement(head); > page.addElement(body); > > Table table = new Table(); > body.addElement(table); > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > for (int i=0; i<1000; i++) { > TR row = new TR(); > table.addElement(row); > > for (int j=0; j<10; j++) { > row.addElement(new TD("" + i + "," + j)); > } > } > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > System.out.println("Created 1000 row table in " + (end > - start) + > "ms"); > > try { > FileOutputStream file = new FileOutputStream("foo.html"); > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > page.output(file); > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > System.out.println("Generated HTML in " + (end - > start) + "ms"); > file.close(); > } > catch (Exception e) { > e.printStackTrace(); > } > > > } > } > > > voodoo$ javac newTimer.java > voodoo$ java newTimer > Start: 953877468186 > End: 953877474677 > Created 1000000 Strings in 6491ms > Start: 953877474730 > End: 953877480225 > Created 1000 row table in 5495ms > Start: 953877480226 > End: 953877536715 > Generated HTML in 56489ms > voodoo$ > > > I realize that my timing technique is rather crude but the results are > consistent. > > > The first timing result (6.491 seconds) is a simple benchmark creating > new Strings, so you might be able to compare numbers from different > machines. These are from the kaffe-1.0.b4-2 JVM running under Linux > (RedHat 6.0) on an idle 450 MHz PIII. > > The second timing result (5.495 seconds) shows how long it took to > instantiate the Html objects representing the page (or table). > > Finally, the third result (56.489 seconds) shows how long it took to > generate and output the HTML for the table. > > As you can see, ~10x longer to output than to instantiate... :( Any > ideas/suggestions/questions? > > > > Thanks in advance! > -- > Cheers, > Derek > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Simon Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:36:34 +0000 > > Derek, > > thought those looked like rather strange results so ran it > myself getting these > timings over 3 runs: > > JDK1.2.2 JDK1.1.7A > Created Strings: 1573 1932 > Created Table: 5194 6823 > Generated HTML: 4158 4850 > > Then changed a couple of lines to buffer the output stream > (see below). > > Created Strings: 1535 1926 > Created Table: 5156 6813 > Generated HTML: 2353 (-43%) 3518 (-27%) > > This is on a PIII, NT4. jdk1.1.7A required an -mx64M argument > to complete the > test. > > I think you may need to re-evaluate your timing method, and > check that other > factors (e.g. the hard drive?) aren't the bottleneck > > - simon > > changed portion of file: > > > try { > FileOutputStream file = new FileOutputStream("foo.html"); > BufferedOutputStream out = new BufferedOutputStream(file); > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > // System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > page.output(out); > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > // System.out.println("End: " + end); > > System.out.println("Generated HTML in " + (end - > start) + "ms"); > out.close(); > file.close(); > } > > > > > Derek Scherger wrote: > > > Hi folks, I've just recently downloaded ECS and started > trying to use it > > as a cleaner alternative to what is going to be some really ugly JSP > > code, and my first impressions are very good. It is so much > cleaner than > > JAVA embedded in HTML (JSP) or HTML embedded in JAVA > > (out.println("<TAG>") that I'm all but sold. > > > > Here's the catch... > > > > We're generally quite concerned with the performance of our > applications > > and new technologies don't generally get the nod unless they compare > > reasonably well with old ones. At the moment, I'm testing > ECS against > > some functionally similar JSP code to generate a somewhat > large table > > (1000 rows by 10 columns) and JSP is about 10x faster, > which is going to > > make ECS a really hard sell. > > > > First thoughts on this problem were that the number of objects being > > instantiated for this table, on the order of 10,000 or so, > was likely a > > big part of the problem. However, a simple test shows that > the output or > > actual generation of the HTML takes far longer than > instantiating the > > required ECS objects, something like 10x longer generating than > > instantiating. > > > > So, first question: does this sound reasonable? > > > > And, second question: how can I improve the HTML generation > time by a > > factor of 10 or so? > > > > I haven't dug very deep into the code yet to see what's > going on and I'm > > hoping someone can shed some light on this. Here's my test > program and > > results, I hope they help! > > > > import java.io.*; > > > > import org.apache.ecs.*; > > import org.apache.ecs.html.*; > > > > public class newTimer { > > > > public static void main(String args[]) { > > long start; > > long end; > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > int count = 1000000; > > > > for (int i=0; i<count; i++) { > > String s = new String("foo"); > > } > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Created " + count + " Strings > in " + (end - start) > > + "ms"); > > > > Html page = new Html(); > > Head head = new Head(); > > Body body = new Body(); > > page.addElement(head); > > page.addElement(body); > > > > Table table = new Table(); > > body.addElement(table); > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > for (int i=0; i<1000; i++) { > > TR row = new TR(); > > table.addElement(row); > > > > for (int j=0; j<10; j++) { > > row.addElement(new TD("" + i + "," + j)); > > } > > } > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Created 1000 row table in " + > (end - start) + > > "ms"); > > > > try { > > FileOutputStream file = new > FileOutputStream("foo.html"); > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > page.output(file); > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Generated HTML in " + (end > - start) + "ms"); > > file.close(); > > } > > catch (Exception e) { > > e.printStackTrace(); > > } > > > > > > } > > } > > > > voodoo$ javac newTimer.java > > voodoo$ java newTimer > > Start: 953877468186 > > End: 953877474677 > > Created 1000000 Strings in 6491ms > > Start: 953877474730 > > End: 953877480225 > > Created 1000 row table in 5495ms > > Start: 953877480226 > > End: 953877536715 > > Generated HTML in 56489ms > > voodoo$ > > > > I realize that my timing technique is rather crude but the > results are > > consistent. > > > > The first timing result (6.491 seconds) is a simple > benchmark creating > > new Strings, so you might be able to compare numbers from different > > machines. These are from the kaffe-1.0.b4-2 JVM running under Linux > > (RedHat 6.0) on an idle 450 MHz PIII. > > > > The second timing result (5.495 seconds) shows how long it took to > > instantiate the Html objects representing the page (or table). > > > > Finally, the third result (56.489 seconds) shows how long it took to > > generate and output the HTML for the table. > > > > As you can see, ~10x longer to output than to instantiate... :( Any > > ideas/suggestions/questions? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > -- > > Cheers, > > Derek > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:13:58 -0700 > > Ok, the kaffe JVM I was using appears to be pretty brutal. Here's the > results on the same machine with the blackdown 1.1.6 compiler and JVM: > > voodoo$ java newTimer > Start: 953911983966 > End: 953911988423 > Created 1000000 Strings in 4457ms > Start: 953911988452 > End: 953911996663 > Created 1000 row table in 8211ms > Start: 953911996664 > End: 953912000944 > Generated HTML in 4280ms > > Presumably this can be improved a lot with a new JDK too. > Here's some more results from a Sun box with JDK 1.2: > > com$ java -version > java version "1.2.1" > Solaris VM (build Solaris_JDK_1.2.1_03, native threads, sunwjit) > > com$ java newTimer > Start: 953911860371 > End: 953911861396 > Created 1000000 Strings in 1025ms > Start: 953911861546 > End: 953911862781 > Created 1000 row table in 1235ms > Start: 953911862784 > End: 953911866364 > Walked table in 3580ms > > > Anyway, let me try a different approach here. Who else is using ECS > instead of or in addition to JSP and what are your thoughts on doing > this? Our impressions are that the code is *much* more > readable and the > design ends up much cleaner using ECS. The only problem we > have selling > ECS internally at this point is that retrieving a similar JSP > page is 2x > to 10x faster than retrieving the same page generated with ECS. On the > other hand, the HTML generated by ECS is about half the size of the > corresponding JSP HTML although I'm sure this can be fixed somewhat by > uglifying the JSP page even further. > > > Simon Christian wrote: > > > > Derek, > > > > thought those looked like rather strange results so ran it > myself getting these > > timings over 3 runs: > > > > JDK1.2.2 JDK1.1.7A > > Created Strings: 1573 1932 > > Created Table: 5194 6823 > > Generated HTML: 4158 4850 > > > > Then changed a couple of lines to buffer the output stream > (see below). > > > > Created Strings: 1535 1926 > > Created Table: 5156 6813 > > Generated HTML: 2353 (-43%) 3518 (-27%) > > > > This is on a PIII, NT4. jdk1.1.7A required an -mx64M > argument to complete the > > test. > > Thanks very much folks! > -- > Cheers, > Derek > _____________________________________________________________________ > Derek Scherger Echologic Software Corporation > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.echologic.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Simon Allaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:20:39 -0600 > > Derek Scherger wrote: > > > > The only problem we have selling > > ECS internally at this point is that retrieving a similar > JSP page is 2x > > to 10x faster than retrieving the same page generated with ECS. > > How would this be related to the HTTP server you're using? > I've been using Resin 1.1 www.caucho.com > Their performance figures look excellent on paper, and in practice it > 'feels' quick. > > Simon > > > -- > Simon Allaway - University of Chicago > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2-7768 > -- > "I'm against animal testing. They just get all nervous > and get the answers wrong." > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:38:57 -0700 > > We're using Apache 1.3.9 with the GNU JSP engine and Apache > JSERV 1.1. > > Simon Allaway wrote: > > > > Derek Scherger wrote: > > > > > > The only problem we have selling > > > ECS internally at this point is that retrieving a similar > JSP page is 2x > > > to 10x faster than retrieving the same page generated with ECS. > > > > How would this be related to the HTTP server you're using? > > I've been using Resin 1.1 www.caucho.com > > Their performance figures look excellent on paper, and in > practice it > > 'feels' quick. > > > > Simon > > > > -- > > Simon Allaway - University of Chicago > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2-7768 > > -- > > "I'm against animal testing. They just get all nervous > > and get the answers wrong." > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html> > > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Cheers, > Derek > _____________________________________________________________________ > Derek Scherger Echologic Software Corporation > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.echologic.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Stephan Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:36:15 -0600 > > Derek Scherger wrote: > > > Hi folks, I've just recently downloaded ECS and started > trying to use it > > as a cleaner alternative to what is going to be some really ugly JSP > > code, and my first impressions are very good. It is so much > cleaner than > > JAVA embedded in HTML (JSP) or HTML embedded in JAVA > > (out.println("<TAG>") that I'm all but sold. > > > > Here's the catch... > > > > We're generally quite concerned with the performance of our > applications > > and new technologies don't generally get the nod unless they compare > > reasonably well with old ones. At the moment, I'm testing > ECS against > > some functionally similar JSP code to generate a somewhat > large table > > (1000 rows by 10 columns) and JSP is about 10x faster, > which is going to > > make ECS a really hard sell. > > > > Sounds about right. htmlKona is about 2x to 3x faster then > ECS. I would expect > jsp to be even faster as it doesn't generate any html from > objects, they are > always just strings. And doing a println("<sometag here>") > is going to be faster > then calling output or to string on an ecs object. I would welcome in > performance improvements. > > > > > First thoughts on this problem were that the number of objects being > > instantiated for this table, on the order of 10,000 or so, > was likely a > > big part of the problem. > > modern vm's do this really well. > > > However, a simple test shows that the output or > > actual generation of the HTML takes far longer than > instantiating the > > required ECS objects, something like 10x longer generating than > > instantiating. > > > > Sounds about right modern vm's handle object creation and > distruction realitivly > well. > > > > > So, first question: does this sound reasonable? > > > > And, second question: how can I improve the HTML generation > time by a > > factor of 10 or so? > > > > Some things to check that will impact performance are > filtering & prettyprinting, > they should be turned off. I don't think you will be able to get a 10x > improvment. The ecs core is pretty solid at this point and > there aren't any > glaringly obvious performance bottlenecks. You might get > lucky and improve the > speed by 2x or 3x. If you are able to get any performance > increases from the > core, send me a patch and I will happily add them. > > > > > I haven't dug very deep into the code yet to see what's > going on and I'm > > hoping someone can shed some light on this. Here's my test > program and > > results, I hope they help! > > > > import java.io.*; > > > > import org.apache.ecs.*; > > import org.apache.ecs.html.*; > > > > public class newTimer { > > > > public static void main(String args[]) { > > long start; > > long end; > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > int count = 1000000; > > > > for (int i=0; i<count; i++) { > > String s = new String("foo"); > > } > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Created " + count + " Strings > in " + (end - start) > > + "ms"); > > > > Html page = new Html(); > > Head head = new Head(); > > Body body = new Body(); > > page.addElement(head); > > page.addElement(body); > > > > Table table = new Table(); > > body.addElement(table); > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > for (int i=0; i<1000; i++) { > > TR row = new TR(); > > table.addElement(row); > > > > for (int j=0; j<10; j++) { > > row.addElement(new TD("" + i + "," + j)); > > } > > } > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Created 1000 row table in " + > (end - start) + > > "ms"); > > > > try { > > FileOutputStream file = new > FileOutputStream("foo.html"); > > > > start = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("Start: " + start); > > > > page.output(file); > > > > end = System.currentTimeMillis(); > > System.out.println("End: " + end); > > > > System.out.println("Generated HTML in " + (end > - start) + "ms"); > > file.close(); > > } > > catch (Exception e) { > > e.printStackTrace(); > > } > > > > > > } > > } > > > > voodoo$ javac newTimer.java > > voodoo$ java newTimer > > Start: 953877468186 > > End: 953877474677 > > Created 1000000 Strings in 6491ms > > Start: 953877474730 > > End: 953877480225 > > Created 1000 row table in 5495ms > > Start: 953877480226 > > End: 953877536715 > > Generated HTML in 56489ms > > voodoo$ > > > > I realize that my timing technique is rather crude but the > results are > > consistent. > > You should buffer you output stream. > > > > > > > The first timing result (6.491 seconds) is a simple > benchmark creating > > new Strings, so you might be able to compare numbers from different > > machines. These are from the kaffe-1.0.b4-2 JVM running under Linux > > (RedHat 6.0) on an idle 450 MHz PIII. > > The solaris exact vm screams on this stuff. It will take an > ecs document that > contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000 ecs objects > and spit it out in > approx. 8 to 12 seconds. ( don't have exact numbers been > awhile since i > benchmarked it ) > > -stephan > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Glen Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:22:48 -0500 > > > Comments on ECS perfermance: > > Servlets are relatively long-lived and create and destroy numerous > objects. This is expensive. If you can reduce these numbers, it is a > Good Thing(tm). Now, instead of always new'ing ECS objects, how about > caching ecs objects? Use a factory class which manages a cache of ecs > objects, explicitly calling factory.destroy(ecs_object) which makes > the object available to the cache once again. It would be useful if > all ecs objects had some sort of 'init()' method which would reset all > the values to the defaults (i am behind the times: i am not sure if > this init() method exists...), as you have to watch out that the > cached objects do not carry anything unwanted along with them... > > i might be willing to write this caching class (es?) if > someone were to > add this init method to ecs... > > -glen > > > > > Derek Scherger wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, I've just recently downloaded ECS and started > trying to use it > > > as a cleaner alternative to what is going to be some > really ugly JSP > > > code, and my first impressions are very good. It is so > much cleaner than > > > JAVA embedded in HTML (JSP) or HTML embedded in JAVA > > > (out.println("<TAG>") that I'm all but sold. > > > > > > Here's the catch... > > > > > > We're generally quite concerned with the performance of > our applications > > > and new technologies don't generally get the nod unless > they compare > > > reasonably well with old ones. At the moment, I'm testing > ECS against > > > some functionally similar JSP code to generate a somewhat > large table > > > (1000 rows by 10 columns) and JSP is about 10x faster, > which is going to > > > make ECS a really hard sell. > > > > > > > Sounds about right. htmlKona is about 2x to 3x faster then > ECS. I would expect > > jsp to be even faster as it doesn't generate any html from > objects, they are > > always just strings. And doing a println("<sometag here>") > is going to be faster > > then calling output or to string on an ecs object. I would > welcome in > > performance improvements. > > > > > > > > First thoughts on this problem were that the number of > objects being > > > instantiated for this table, on the order of 10,000 or > so, was likely a > > > big part of the problem. > > > > modern vm's do this really well. > > > > > However, a simple test shows that the output or > > > actual generation of the HTML takes far longer than > instantiating the > > > required ECS objects, something like 10x longer generating than > > > instantiating. > > > > > > > Sounds about right modern vm's handle object creation and > distruction realitivly > > well. > > > > > > > > So, first question: does this sound reasonable? > > > > > > And, second question: how can I improve the HTML > generation time by a > > > factor of 10 or so? > > > > > > > Some things to check that will impact performance are > filtering & prettyprinting, > > they should be turned off. I don't think you will be able > to get a 10x > > improvment. The ecs core is pretty solid at this point and > there aren't any > > glaringly obvious performance bottlenecks. You might get > lucky and improve the > > speed by 2x or 3x. If you are able to get any performance > increases from the > > core, send me a patch and I will happily add them. > > > > stuff deleted...... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "jon *" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:17:42 -0800 > > on 3/24/00 8:13 AM, Derek Scherger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyway, let me try a different approach here. Who else is using ECS > > instead of or in addition to JSP and what are your thoughts on doing > > this? Our impressions are that the code is *much* more > readable and the > > design ends up much cleaner using ECS. The only problem we > have selling > > ECS internally at this point is that retrieving a similar > JSP page is 2x > > to 10x faster than retrieving the same page generated with > ECS. On the > > other hand, the HTML generated by ECS is about half the size of the > > corresponding JSP HTML although I'm sure this can be fixed > somewhat by > > uglifying the JSP page even further. > > The issue with speed is obviously an issue with JVM speed. > ECS does have an > overhead, but it isn't so much that it outweighs its advantages. > > I personally wouldn't use ECS as a replacement for JSP. I > also wouldn't use > JSP. ;-) So, what would I use today? I would use a > combination of Turbine > and WebMacro or Freemarker or I would use Cocoon. > > -jon > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "Derek Scherger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:48:02 -0700 > > Thanks for your reply Stephan, I have a couple follow up questions for > you... > > > Some things to check that will impact performance are > filtering & prettyprinting, > > they should be turned off. I don't think you will be able > to get a 10x > > improvment. The ecs core is pretty solid at this point and > there aren't any > > glaringly obvious performance bottlenecks. You might get > lucky and improve the > > speed by 2x or 3x. If you are able to get any performance > increases from the > > core, send me a patch and I will happily add them. > > filter_state=false > filter_attrivute_state=false > pretty_print=false > > I'll let you know if we do manage to speed things up anywhere. The > numbers from my 1000 row by 10 column table are all over the map in > terms of object creation verses html generation times depending on the > VM and machine being used. Initially I thought that the html > generation > was bad but I now have other cases where it's the same or faster than > object creation. > > > The solaris exact vm screams on this stuff. It will take > an ecs document that > > contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000 ecs > objects and spit it out in > > approx. 8 to 12 seconds. ( don't have exact numbers been > awhile since i > > benchmarked it ) > > I've never heard of the solaris "exact" vm... what/where is it? > > Say you get 800,000 ecs objects in 10 seconds, that's 100,000 objects > per second which sounds pretty good all right, what type of > machine did > you get these numbers on? > i.e. how big and fast was it? :) > > > Thanks again > -- > Cheers, > Derek > _____________________________________________________________________ > Derek Scherger Echologic Software Corporation > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.echologic.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Performance Question > From: "jon *" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:04:38 -0800 > > on 3/24/00 11:48 AM, Derek Scherger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've never heard of the solaris "exact" vm... what/where is it? > > Java 2 Standard Edition (1.2.2_05) > http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/java/download.html > > by far one of the fastest JVM's out there...they call it the exact vm > because of the type of gc that it uses...exact gc... > > you should also make sure to add in HotSpot as well...;-) > > http://java.sun.com/products/hotspot/index.html > > it is 30% faster than the 1.0 version of hotspot... > > all this speed stuff is by far a factor of the JVM that you > are using... > > -jon > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > End of ECS Digest > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
