Yeah. On first server I run Jenkins and on the second I run test script.
After the start of Jenkins, the script was running
for 8 minutes in 50 threads. It sent much more than 10 000 requests.
The scenario of creating freestyle job run only for 1 minute, so the
amount of requests was smaller, but more than 5000.
It was only basic tests and I am sure, that the testing was not
sufficient, but I think that it has potential to be faster than current
implementation.
The performance can be also improved by using XNIO library wrote in C.
Stuart Dougles, the main developer of Undertow,
told on one lecture, that it can be about 10% faster (but I didn't test
it).
On 06/04/2014 04:50 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Do you think your 8 minutes of testing got past the compilation
threshold of 10,000 method invocations to ensure that the JVM had an
the chance to optimize?
On 4 June 2014 15:31, Jakub Bartecek <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I created new servlet container for Jenkins CI based on Undertow
(new web server for WildFly).
It replaces the old implementation based on Winstone and Jetty.
I aimed to keep backward compatibility with options in the current
container.
All essential options are supported and no problems with Jenkins
was found out.
I named this project Undertow4Jenkins and it is on GitHub (all
commits since February 2014):
https://github.com/jbartece/undertow4jenkins
The integration of this container into Jenkins is implemented in
these forked repositories:
extras-executable-war module:
https://github.com/jbartece/extras-executable-war
Jenkins CI: https://github.com/jbartece/jenkins
Performance tests:
During processing performance tests were compared current
version and version with new container Jenkins CI.
I tested application in 3 scenarios during 8 minutes long
tests. Each scenario was run 10 times for both
versions of Jenkins.
If you are interested in it, I can describe tests with more
details.
Scenarios:
1, Loading main page using HTTP GET: New implementation was
about 12% faster.
2, Loading freestyle job configuration using HTTP GET: New
implementation was about 4% faster.
3, Creating freestyle job using HTTP POST: New implementation
was about 0.1% slower.
I made it as my master's thesis and provide it as an alternative
to current version, but I do not force anyone to use it ;).
I think that it has potential to be better than current container.
Cheers,
Jakub
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:jenkinsci-dev%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
