Hi, I would do something higher than JMH if possible.
Basically just launch the benchmark you already have to test your application (don't you? ;-) Then, add instrumentation and indeed, look at the response time. Especially in a multithreaded environment because, frequently, instrumentation implementations cause bottlenecks. JMX is not instrumentation. So I don't know where the 2% comes from. On 9 May 2018 at 15:37, Dain Ironfoot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am evaluating a product which works by instrumenting bytecode. > I launch my application via the provided agent which instruments bytecode, > profiles and generates reports about my application. > > What would be the best way to determine the performance penalty imposed by > running the agent? > Would it be enough if I were to capture latency of a few of operation in > my app via JMH with and without the agent? > Also, is there a baseline expected drop in performance by using an agent > which does bytecode instrumentation? For example, I sort of recall that JMX > imposes a penalty of about ~2%. > > Any ideas are most welcome. > > Thanks, > Mr Anderson > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mechanical-sympathy" 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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mechanical-sympathy" 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.
