I've been following this from the initial announcement now and the first things that came to my mind were: 1) this test is for EJB1.0 and the tested Gemstone is more EJB 1.1 than 1.0 2) The tested Gemstone version (3.0) is an older one, 3.1 was a measurable improvement 3) You don't run a Gemstone server on that kind of hardware As far as out of the box performance vs. the magical installation goes, there are a few VERY SIMPLE parameters that you can tune to get going, but don't forget that Gemstone's PCA is a complex product that deserves the same kind of respect as say Oracle 8i when tuning. They have an excellent administration and tuning course available that when taken by a team of competent engineers will allow them to achieve that magical setup themselves, without a lot of help from the product engineers. Tools also help, and Gemstone comes with a very nice one for tuning and monitoring all the parameters needed to tune properly. Frank Sauer P.S. I DON'T work for Gemstone, just like their product a lot. -----Original Message----- From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Martin Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EJB Server Comparison (WebLogic, WebSphere, NetDynamics,GemSt one) Dwight Rexin wrote: > There's 2 things going on here. Tim is talking about > "out of the box" performance achievable by reasonably > knowledgeable individuals. And that's an interesting > measure in and of itself. > > The other is a measure of absolute best performance > potential. In other words "What's the absolute fastest > this race car can go on this race track in these > weather conditions?" which is a very different > measure. You'd want the chassis designer, engine > designer, factory tire guys, best mechanics, and > best drivers on hand for such an enterprise. And > then it'd take collaboration and time to get to > the absolute fastest lap times possible. I dunno. It's always bothered me that some of these benchmark teams do assemble an almost magical combination of hardware and software that can squeak out every last ounce of potential from a test. What do you think the odds are of 'some poor schmuk' re-assembling and deploying this magical combination? How about maintenance and support for the magical setup (this assumes long-term retainer of key people). I guess I'd really like to see the 'out of the box' speed compared to the dream speed and just how much it took to go from one to the other (many tests do this) in terms of $$, time, and people. > I wouldn't try to optimally tune a Solaris or Linux OS, or an > Apache or Netscape web server, or an Oracle or DB2 relational > engine without soliciting expert help. Most of the time the > folks that wrote the code are the absolute best possible > experts to have available for extreme performance potential > tests. Assuming they're available and you can afford them. > If you settle for something less than that you're testing > something other than maximum performance potential. Dwight, you work for a vendor. Can you give us some idea of how many times you have been called to consult (for super-tuning) [ballpark] versus how many deployments [again, ballpark] of gemstone? My guess is that the average deployment is somewhere a little above 'out of the box' and a whole lot below super-tuned... Jeff (and since we're in such a touchy area, gotta include the "These are my opinions alone and nobody else's..." disclaimer) =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
