Did you call Socket.setTcpNoDelay with true? This buffeting has a big impact if you didn't.
NIO probably won't help -- the JDK uses it underneath anyway. Also standard RMI is much faster than JERI in my experience. - Tim On Sep 17, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Silas De Munck <silas.demu...@ua.ac.be> wrote: > Hello, > > In the context of a distributed discrete event simulation, I need to be able > to send objects at a high rate between program instances on different hosts. > Initially I implemented this using remote calls to an object instance living > on the other side. This performs fairly well, but because essentially I only > need a one-way stream-connection with asynchronous sending, I thought using > the RMI mechanism for this was not the best solution. Therefore I added a TCP > implementation using Sockets and ObjectStreams. > > Now comparing the RMI and the socket implementation, the results are somewhat > strange. I expected the sockets to perform better because of the reduced > overhead, but this isn't the case. My (naive) socket implementation only > reaches about 25% of the througput rate of the RMI implementation. > > Does RMI use a different (faster) serialization implementation, compared to > the > serialization used with ObjectInput/Output-stream? > Are there any other differences that could explain the performance difference? > > Any pointers on where to start investigate this issue would be very much > appreciated. > > Regards, > > Silas > > > > > -- > > Silas De Munck > PhD Student > > Computational Modeling and Programming (COMP) > University of Antwerp > Middelheimlaan 1 > 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium > G2.07, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics > > e-mail: silas.demu...@ua.ac.be
