Below I've pasted an excerpt from a post to this board a few months back. I
also posted a variation of the same question on the Weblogic.performance
newsgroup. The answer I got back was that basically that performance
difference didn't sound surprising considering the processor speed. Which
came a as a big surprise to a lot of our IT guys here who were convinced
that RISC was supposed to smoke Pentium at any speed. I have a theory that
the speed difference is because Java (and the hotspot implementation in
particular) is much better tuned for Windows than HP-UX. 

I never got an explanation as to why Weblogic degraded so much more running
two large reports on the UNIX box. So we know run one Weblogic instance per
CPU, basically because of FOP. 

<<< original email  subj:benchmarking question >>>

To benchmark I used FOP to render a 200 page PDF document from an XSLT
transform on a static XML-file (no database connection is involved). The
XSLT transform takes very little time compared to the FOP renderer. I've
attached a smaller, but otherwise identical version of the PDF doc I'm using
to benchmark. I've tried a DomSource for input, a SaxSource, and the
XSLTInputHandler. The results are almost exactly the same in each case.

Below are the results I see. Initial heap size=max heap size in each case.
Each server is running the latest JDK 131 (w/Hotspot). (I have set all the
HP system variables (max_thread_proc, etc.) to Sun recommendations.)

Nt dev box (NT4-Worksatation, PIII-933mhz, 512MB ram):
Heap Size=64M, 1 report   =  251ms/page 
Heap Size=64M, 2 reports  =  750ms/page 
Heap Size=256M, 1 report  =  245ms/page
Heap Size=256M, 2 reports =  500/page

HP server (HP-Unix, 2x550 mhz, 2GB ram):
Heap Size=64M, 1 report =  545ms/page (frequent out of memory errors)
Heap Size=64M, 2 reports  =  didn't try
Heap Size=256M, 1 report  =  372ms/page
Heap Size=256M, 2 reports =  1700ms/page
Heap Size=512M, 1 report  =  350ms/page
Heap Size=512M, 2 reports =  1675ms/page

The only difference I can see for sure between the two boxes is that the NT
machine performs at least 10 times as much garbage collection. (Sometimes
several times per page, as opposed to once every 8-10 pages on the Unix
Garbage collection occurs a little more frequenly on the HP box when I lower
the heap size, but still not nearly as often as on the NT--at any heap size.
Also the HP box runs out of memory if I lower the heap size. I was hoping
this was due to some HP setting, but I'm starting to come to the conclusion
that it's just some difference in the hotspot implementations.

Matt Savino
Quest Diagnostics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Eckert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Performance difference between Unix and PC
> Hi Guilbert,
> very  interesting. If you're experiencing that FOP runs faster on a
> NT-machine than on a UNIX machine then we are experiencing 
> the same here.
> The same page on my NT machine takes 1 sec whereas on the 
> UNIX machine it
> takes 10 seconds.
> So far I assumed it's just a load problem of this UNIX 
> machineas it has to
> handle the load of 30 developers, everybody with own processes of our
> backend system which is very performance consuming.
> But would be interesting to know wether this is the case or if FOP is
> really slower on UNIX. Does anybody know?
> Jens
> GUILBERT Nicolas SIReS schrieb:
> > Who can explain the huge performance difference we 
> experience between
> > using FOP on a NT server or a PC on one side, or on a unix 
> platform on
> > the other side.
> >
> > Is it normal ? Is FOP built to run on PC or NT ? As it is a java
> > library, it is supposed to work on all platform ?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Nicolas
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to