Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
are there any plans to update the Performance Report for Geronimo 2.2? IBM has writen a performance benchmark article for the DayTrader Apps comparing JBoss with Geronimo http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-perfbenchmk/index.htm -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Draft-of-2.0.2-Performance-Report-tp13357025s134p26525262.html Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
I think that article details the method about how to perform an out-of-box performance testing on JEE 5 compliant java application servers, including G 2.2. User can follow it to do a simple and quick benchmark, and make choice accordingly. Forrest
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
matt... just did an initial look. just a few comments for now... - were there funcational/load issues with the daytrader 1.2 numbers that were omitted? - was really surprised by the slow down in the web container primitives (probably has to do with the spec upgrade) and the jump in direct mode performance - thanks for the kudos in the acknowledgements - yes, we need to tag 1.2 and 2.0 so we can start the next turn of the crank on 2.X chris On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks -- I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. - Tyler Durden
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
Hi Matt, This is a great report .. thanks for taking the time to create it. Here is my feedback on it- - Run spellcheck :-p there were a few typos here and there like enough spelled ebnough - The Introduction on page 3 takes about PT, that was a metric you used in the last report, but in this report you are comparing against G1.1.1. The PT is not being used or mentioned throughout the remaining of the report. - Please mention if you need RAIDs or Ramdisks for the DB - I think you forgot the mention the OS version... I assume its SLES 10 SP1 - Quite surprised that we go from 70M unzipped to 111M after initial startup (whats the big hitter here.. the logs??) - The URL at the end of page 8 (more info about daytrader) seems to be incorrect and the link doesnt match the URL - the slowdown in the web primitives is a bit surprising... and yet the jump in direct mode numbers is pretty cool - would have loved to see the Trade Session2JDBC numbers as well - pg 14, 2nd para, typo due -- do - can we have an appendix at the end of the report with individual run results like last time? HTH, Piyush Agarwal On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/http://people.apache.org/%7Ehogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
ah... piyush raises a good point regarding the session 2 direct mode. this is provided by both daytrader 1.2 and 2.0 and is one of the more common patterns we see out in the j2ee community. chris On 10/23/07, Piyush Agarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt, This is a great report .. thanks for taking the time to create it. Here is my feedback on it- - Run spellcheck :-p there were a few typos here and there like enough spelled ebnough - The Introduction on page 3 takes about PT, that was a metric you used in the last report, but in this report you are comparing against G1.1.1. The PT is not being used or mentioned throughout the remaining of the report. - Please mention if you need RAIDs or Ramdisks for the DB - I think you forgot the mention the OS version... I assume its SLES 10 SP1 - Quite surprised that we go from 70M unzipped to 111M after initial startup (whats the big hitter here.. the logs??) - The URL at the end of page 8 (more info about daytrader) seems to be incorrect and the link doesnt match the URL - the slowdown in the web primitives is a bit surprising... and yet the jump in direct mode numbers is pretty cool - would have loved to see the Trade Session2JDBC numbers as well - pg 14, 2nd para, typo due -- do - can we have an appendix at the end of the report with individual run results like last time? HTH, Piyush Agarwal On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/http://people.apache.org/%7Ehogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks -- I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. - Tyler Durden
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Christopher Blythe wrote: matt... just did an initial look. just a few comments for now... - were there funcational/load issues with the daytrader 1.2 numbers that were omitted? Not really. The runs were clean, CPU was high and all the fundamentals seemed to be correct. Was there something specific you were thinking of? - was really surprised by the slow down in the web container primitives (probably has to do with the spec upgrade) and the jump in direct mode performance The primary difference there is a new Tomcat version and perhaps some changes to our integration. Later on I'd like to do some profiling to better understand the issues but the slow down seems to be consistent with other performance numbers I've seen. I think the Linux Journal guys did something in this space but I'd have to go back and look. - thanks for the kudos in the acknowledgements Heh, thank you - yes, we need to tag 1.2 and 2.0 so we can start the next turn of the crank on 2.X I'll start that process this week. Need to get the web pages updated a bit as well. Lots of little stuff to do. chris On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks -- I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. - Tyler Durden
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Piyush Agarwal wrote: Hi Matt, This is a great report .. thanks for taking the time to create it. Here is my feedback on it- Run spellcheck :-p there were a few typos here and there like enough spelled ebnough what is a spell checker ? The Introduction on page 3 takes about PT, that was a metric you used in the last report, but in this report you are comparing against G1.1.1. The PT is not being used or mentioned throughout the remaining of the report. thanks for catching this. PT is left over from the initial report. I'll fix that. Please mention if you need RAIDs or Ramdisks for the DB K I think you forgot the mention the OS version... I assume its SLES 10 SP1 Page 9 Quite surprised that we go from 70M unzipped to 111M after initial startup (whats the big hitter here.. the logs??) The URL at the end of page 8 (more info about daytrader) seems to be incorrect and the link doesnt match the URL the slowdown in the web primitives is a bit surprising... and yet the jump in direct mode numbers is pretty cool The mysteries of life ... it wierded me out as well. I think it needs to be looked into but it is an external measurement so I figure putting out the info as it is with all the caveats is better than waiting another 6 months :) would have loved to see the Trade Session2JDBC numbers as well could due that pg 14, 2nd para, typo due -- do doh can we have an appendix at the end of the report with individual run results like last time? Maybe...I have the XML files from JIBE but there doesn't seem to be a way to regerenate a nice summary...do you know how to do this ? HTH, Piyush Agarwal On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
Hi Matt, Page 9 mentions - SO F T WA R E Operating System: SuSE Enterprise Linux Enterprise SP1 2.6.16.46-0.4-smp #1 SMP Mon Apr 2 17:59:08 UTC 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux The OS version is missing SuSE Enterprise Linux Enterprise 10 SP1 As for JIBE, If you have the .log files which go with the xml files its easy as they have the complete JIBE output captured verbatim which you can copy paste in the report. I dont know any automated way of getting the numbers from the XML... seems it does summarize the run at the end of then file under the HTTP_summary tag. On 10/23/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Piyush Agarwal wrote: Hi Matt, This is a great report .. thanks for taking the time to create it. Here is my feedback on it- - Run spellcheck :-p there were a few typos here and there like enough spelled ebnough what is a spell checker ? - - The Introduction on page 3 takes about PT, that was a metric you used in the last report, but in this report you are comparing against G1.1.1. The PT is not being used or mentioned throughout the remaining of the report. thanks for catching this. PT is left over from the initial report. I'll fix that. - - Please mention if you need RAIDs or Ramdisks for the DB K - I think you forgot the mention the OS version... I assume its SLES 10 SP1 Page 9 - Quite surprised that we go from 70M unzipped to 111M after initial startup (whats the big hitter here.. the logs??) - - The URL at the end of page 8 (more info about daytrader) seems to be incorrect and the link doesnt match the URL - the slowdown in the web primitives is a bit surprising... and yet the jump in direct mode numbers is pretty cool The mysteries of life ... it wierded me out as well. I think it needs to be looked into but it is an external measurement so I figure putting out the info as it is with all the caveats is better than waiting another 6 months :) - - would have loved to see the Trade Session2JDBC numbers as well could due that - pg 14, 2nd para, typo due -- do doh - can we have an appendix at the end of the report with individual run results like last time? Maybe...I have the XML files from JIBE but there doesn't seem to be a way to regerenate a nice summary...do you know how to do this ? - HTH, Piyush Agarwal On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/http://people.apache.org/%7Ehogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
Thanks. Amazing what you can read when you know the answer. On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Piyush Agarwal wrote: Hi Matt, Page 9 mentions - SO F T WA R E Operating System: SuSE Enterprise Linux Enterprise SP1 2.6.16.46-0.4-smp #1 SMP Mon Apr 2 17:59:08 UTC 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux The OS version is missing SuSE Enterprise Linux Enterprise 10 SP1 As for JIBE, If you have the .log files which go with the xml files its easy as they have the complete JIBE output captured verbatim which you can copy paste in the report. I dont know any automated way of getting the numbers from the XML... seems it does summarize the run at the end of then file under the HTTP_summary tag. On 10/23/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Piyush Agarwal wrote: Hi Matt, This is a great report .. thanks for taking the time to create it. Here is my feedback on it- Run spellcheck :-p there were a few typos here and there like enough spelled ebnough what is a spell checker ? The Introduction on page 3 takes about PT, that was a metric you used in the last report, but in this report you are comparing against G1.1.1. The PT is not being used or mentioned throughout the remaining of the report. thanks for catching this. PT is left over from the initial report. I'll fix that. Please mention if you need RAIDs or Ramdisks for the DB K I think you forgot the mention the OS version... I assume its SLES 10 SP1 Page 9 Quite surprised that we go from 70M unzipped to 111M after initial startup (whats the big hitter here.. the logs??) The URL at the end of page 8 (more info about daytrader) seems to be incorrect and the link doesnt match the URL the slowdown in the web primitives is a bit surprising... and yet the jump in direct mode numbers is pretty cool The mysteries of life ... it wierded me out as well. I think it needs to be looked into but it is an external measurement so I figure putting out the info as it is with all the caveats is better than waiting another 6 months :) would have loved to see the Trade Session2JDBC numbers as well could due that pg 14, 2nd para, typo due -- do doh can we have an appendix at the end of the report with individual run results like last time? Maybe...I have the XML files from JIBE but there doesn't seem to be a way to regerenate a nice summary...do you know how to do this ? HTH, Piyush Agarwal On 10/22/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
As for JIBE, If you have the .log files which go with the xml files its easy as they have the complete JIBE output captured verbatim which you can copy paste in the report. I dont know any automated way of getting the numbers from the XML... seems it does summarize the run at the end of then file under the HTTP_summary tag. I have the log files but used two drivers so they are individuals. I have the XML files which were merged. If you have a script to transform the XML doc into a readable format I'd love to use it and include the info.
Re: Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
Unfortunately I dont have any such script for parsing the xml... if you have used a sync-engine for the 2 jibe machines then its log files might have merged data. On 10/23/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for JIBE, If you have the .log files which go with the xml files its easy as they have the complete JIBE output captured verbatim which you can copy paste in the report. I dont know any automated way of getting the numbers from the XML... seems it does summarize the run at the end of then file under the HTTP_summary tag. I have the log files but used two drivers so they are individuals. I have the XML files which were merged. If you have a script to transform the XML doc into a readable format I'd love to use it and include the info.
Draft of 2.0.2 Performance Report
I've been noodling on this for a bit and wanted to give y'all a gander at what I have for the performance report at this point. This is based on 2.0.2 and uses DayTrader 2.0. There are a few numbers that are missing. I originally had planned on not producing them but the charts look odd with the missing numbers. It includes a comparison of 1.1.1 and 2.0.2 using DayTrader 1.2 and 2.0. Heh, we need to release those monsters. This should be considered an alpha release but will move quickly to final by the end of the week :) Please provide your feedback on content, what's interesting, not, etc. Thanks for taking a few minutes to look at the draft. Look at http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/ Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf Thanks
