Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Just downloaded JProfiler eval. Compared tagfile performance between 7.0.21 and 7.0.trunk (this one this time : http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/) With your optimization, we achieve a 24% performance gain - nice ;) Test 7.0.21 7.0.trunk tagfile 267ms 206ms You can see JConsole output * 7.0.21 : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/tagperftagfile7021.jpg/ * 7.0.trunk : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/tagperftagfile70trunk.jpg/ Tests were made with http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-tagfile.jsp One more question though : Do you think we can cache ValueExpression instances ? Caching those instance, we could gain 14% more performance on this use case. If we can cache them, what would be a good cache key ? (expressionAsStringjspPageName ?) Also, need to update classictag performance suite, there's a problem in it. I'l then do one more comparison test between classictag and tagfile. Note : this is once more my home computer, but using JProfiler is a bit more accurate I think. -- Details -- 7.0.21 - tagfile Total time : [267 ms] in edit-tagfile.jsp Note : if not specified, units in microseconds [860] 1 iteration - [565]doTag (cf input_tagx.java code) - [450] PageContextImpl.proprietaryEvaluate - [249] ValueExpressionImpl.getValue - [122] ElExpressionFactoryImpl.createValueExpression [note 1] - [236]DefaultInstanceManager.newInstance - [203] DefaultInstanceManager.processAnnotations [note 2] note 1 : 14% gain Perhaps we can optimize here caching ValueExpressions instance (caching where since tagfiles are not pooled ?). What would be the key of such a cache ? expression+jsp.class ? note 2 : 23.6% gain : Mark optimization. Cache annotation processing. 7.0.trunk - tagfile Total time : [206 ms] edit-tagfile.jsp [687] 1 iteration - [586]doTag (cf input_tagx.java code) - [470] PageContextImpl.proprietaryEvaluate - [269] ValueExpressionImpl.getValue - [127] ElExpressionFactoryImpl.createValueExpression [note 1] - [44] DefaultInstanceManager.newInstance - [10] DefaultInstanceManager.processAnnotations [note 2] Thanks !!! - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 22h20 Objet : Re: Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 20:36, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Sorry, no real difference. Even worse, I'm on my home computer and here I don't see anymore the *5 difference between simple tags and classic tags. The figures I saw were: Test OP Me Cached tagfile 500 328 203 classic 100 141 156 simple 500 250 156 none 94 140 156 A slight increase in the case where the cache isn't used and a reasonable improvement in the other cases. Performance tuning is always going to be system dependent. In this case I think there us enough evidence to justify putting in the cache - even if this is effectively a micro benchmark. I'll continue these tests tomorrow at work (perhaps there's some file scanning / reading in action - and since I'm with AV software...). I'd be very interested to see those results. - Tests results - Downloaded tomcat trunk sources from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/ That is actually 8.0.x but there is currently very little difference between that an 7.0.x with is at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/ Cheers, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 08/09/2011 09:59, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Just downloaded JProfiler eval. Compared tagfile performance between 7.0.21 and 7.0.trunk (this one this time : http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/) With your optimization, we achieve a 24% performance gain - nice ;) Test 7.0.217.0.trunk tagfile 267ms 206ms You can see JConsole output * 7.0.21 : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/tagperftagfile7021.jpg/ * 7.0.trunk : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/tagperftagfile70trunk.jpg/ Tests were made with http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-tagfile.jsp One more question though : Do you think we can cache ValueExpression instances ? The parsed expressions are already cached. I don't think there is any scope for further caching here. I'll take another look with the profiler just to be sure. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
The parsed expressions are already cached. I don't think there is any scope for further caching here. Parsed expressions are cached as org.apache.el.parser.Node instances (in ExpressionBuilder#createNodeInternal) - if I understood correctly. What I was think was to cache javax.el.ValueExpression instances, but not sure if it's correct to cache those instances (what's scope ?). For instance, in a jsp compiled code, we have multiple calls to PageContextImpl.proprietaryEvaluate. proprietaryEvaluate calls createValueExpression and getValue. In a sample * 28% of proprietaryEvaluate time is spent on createValueExpression, * 45% is spent on getValue - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 Septembre 2011 11h28 Objet : Re: Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 08/09/2011 09:59, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Just downloaded JProfiler eval. Compared tagfile performance between 7.0.21 and 7.0.trunk (this one this time : http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/) With your optimization, we achieve a 24% performance gain - nice ;) Test 7.0.21 7.0.trunk tagfile 267ms 206ms You can see JConsole output * 7.0.21 : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/tagperftagfile7021.jpg/ * 7.0.trunk : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/tagperftagfile70trunk.jpg/ Tests were made with http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-tagfile.jsp One more question though : Do you think we can cache ValueExpression instances ? The parsed expressions are already cached. I don't think there is any scope for further caching here. I'll take another look with the profiler just to be sure. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 08/09/2011 10:40, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: The parsed expressions are already cached. I don't think there is any scope for further caching here. Parsed expressions are cached as org.apache.el.parser.Node instances (in ExpressionBuilder#createNodeInternal) - if I understood correctly. Correct. What I was think was to cache javax.el.ValueExpression instances, but not sure if it's correct to cache those instances (what's scope ?). This isn't the biggest delay in my profiling (I use YourKit) whether I use sampling or tracing which just goes to show how much variation you can get from system to system and with different profilers. In my results, annotation scanning is still an issue for postConstruct / preDestroy. Enhancing the caching to handle these as well gives the following (with profiling disabled): The figures I saw were: TestOP Me Cached Cached2 tagfile 500 328 203 125 classic 100 141 156 141 simple 500 250 156 125 none94 140 156 141 I've added that caching to trunk and tc7.0.x/trunk. With that problem fixed, the sampling and tracing show very different results which suggests to me that the tracing overhead is starting to dominate the results. For instance, in a jsp compiled code, we have multiple calls to PageContextImpl.proprietaryEvaluate. proprietaryEvaluate calls createValueExpression and getValue. In a sample * 28% of proprietaryEvaluate time is spent on createValueExpression, * 45% is spent on getValue The results of getValue can't be cached since the values of the resolved attributes may change between invocations. It should be possible to cache the ValueExpression per JSP page (in the PageContext) but I am not sure how much that will gain you. We may be into the realm of improving the results of a micro benchmark rather than generally improving performance. I'll take a look. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Thanks Mark ! It should be possible to cache the ValueExpression per JSP page (in the PageContext) Yes, but the PageContext life's span is more or less a user request, no ? In this case, ValueExpression caching will only be usefull when exactly the same expression is used multiple times in the same JSP. And I agree that we are improving there a micro-benchmark. What I was thinking was more about caching ValueExpression per class of JSP (i.e. one cache for edit_002dclassictag_jsp.java) - the cache being shared by all users of the application. WDYT ? - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 Septembre 2011 13h09 Objet : Re: Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 08/09/2011 10:40, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: The parsed expressions are already cached. I don't think there is any scope for further caching here. Parsed expressions are cached as org.apache.el.parser.Node instances (in ExpressionBuilder#createNodeInternal) - if I understood correctly. Correct. What I was think was to cache javax.el.ValueExpression instances, but not sure if it's correct to cache those instances (what's scope ?). This isn't the biggest delay in my profiling (I use YourKit) whether I use sampling or tracing which just goes to show how much variation you can get from system to system and with different profilers. In my results, annotation scanning is still an issue for postConstruct / preDestroy. Enhancing the caching to handle these as well gives the following (with profiling disabled): The figures I saw were: Test OP Me Cached Cached2 tagfile 500 328 203 125 classic 100 141 156 141 simple 500 250 156 125 none 94 140 156 141 I've added that caching to trunk and tc7.0.x/trunk. With that problem fixed, the sampling and tracing show very different results which suggests to me that the tracing overhead is starting to dominate the results. For instance, in a jsp compiled code, we have multiple calls to PageContextImpl.proprietaryEvaluate. proprietaryEvaluate calls createValueExpression and getValue. In a sample * 28% of proprietaryEvaluate time is spent on createValueExpression, * 45% is spent on getValue The results of getValue can't be cached since the values of the resolved attributes may change between invocations. It should be possible to cache the ValueExpression per JSP page (in the PageContext) but I am not sure how much that will gain you. We may be into the realm of improving the results of a micro benchmark rather than generally improving performance. I'll take a look. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 08/09/2011 12:19, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks Mark ! It should be possible to cache the ValueExpression per JSP page (in the PageContext) Yes, but the PageContext life's span is more or less a user request, no ? Correct. I should have said via the PageContext since that is all that is available at the point where the cache would be used. In this case, ValueExpression caching will only be useful when exactly the same expression is used multiple times in the same JSP. And I agree that we are improving there a micro-benchmark. What I was thinking was more about caching ValueExpression per class of JSP (i.e. one cache for edit_002dclassictag_jsp.java) - the cache being shared by all users of the application. Agreed. WDYT ? I think it is worth a try. I tried it and saw no improvement. If there was going to be any benefit then this use case is where I'd expect to see it so I think we can conclude there is little more to be done here. It appears the overhead of the cache is roughly the same as the overhead of creating the value expression (or both are so small that other factors are dominating). Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Thanks very much Mark for all the work on this issue ! Do you know which version of tomcat will contain the improvements you've made ? - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 Septembre 2011 14h24 Objet : Re: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 08/09/2011 12:19, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks Mark ! It should be possible to cache the ValueExpression per JSP page (in the PageContext) Yes, but the PageContext life's span is more or less a user request, no ? Correct. I should have said via the PageContext since that is all that is available at the point where the cache would be used. In this case, ValueExpression caching will only be useful when exactly the same expression is used multiple times in the same JSP. And I agree that we are improving there a micro-benchmark. What I was thinking was more about caching ValueExpression per class of JSP (i.e. one cache for edit_002dclassictag_jsp.java) - the cache being shared by all users of the application. Agreed. WDYT ? I think it is worth a try. I tried it and saw no improvement. If there was going to be any benefit then this use case is where I'd expect to see it so I think we can conclude there is little more to be done here. It appears the overhead of the cache is roughly the same as the overhead of creating the value expression (or both are so small that other factors are dominating). Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 08/09/2011 13:50, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks very much Mark for all the work on this issue ! Do you know which version of tomcat will contain the improvements you've made ? 7.0.22 onwards. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Classic tag execution is more or less the same than using no tags at all. This impacts web applications relying heavily on custom tag files (such as Spring ROO generated applications). Overall performance with / without tag files is ratio 3 (including JDBC calls, etc...) I've created a maven project to reproduce the issue. * tagfile performance [elapsed = 500 ms]. URL = http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/edit-tagfile.jsp * classic tag performance [elapsed = 100 ms]. http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/edit-classictag.jsp * simple tag performance [elapsed = 500 ms]. http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/edit-simpletag.jsp * notag performance [elapsed = 94 ms]. http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/edit-notag.jsp Project is available in Spring Forum (http://forum.springsource.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4227d=1315397882). I cannot send it with email for the moment (some network restriction policy here - sorry). More info about this issue is available here http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?114210-Roo-tagfiles-performance-issuesp=378862#post378862 Should I create an issue in bugzilla or did I miss something ? Thanks for the help !
Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
I understand it, but it's reasonable to pay 20% CPU more (on code executed on JSP side - not overall code). Here the difference is *5. It appears to me a bit more than originally intended, don't you think ? I'm new on tag files, so perhaps as you said it's just a feature for quick prototyping or for tags seldom in the application used (but in this case it's rather weird). - Mail original - De : Remy Maucherat remy.mauche...@gmail.com À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 16h57 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Thanks for taking your time to look this issue ! - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 19h13 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 07/09/2011 18:37, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks for taking your time to look this issue ! Adding a cache for annotation scanning (that was taking most of the time) was relatively simple. Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? Mark - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 19h13 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Ouch, that was fast ! Thanks very much ! Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? - Of course ! Donno if I'm doing it now or tomorrow morning though - I'm a bit ill at the moment ;( sources are in trunk, right ? (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/) - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 20h36 Objet : Re: Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 18:37, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks for taking your time to look this issue ! Adding a cache for annotation scanning (that was taking most of the time) was relatively simple. Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? Mark - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 19h13 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
Sorry, no real difference. Even worse, I'm on my home computer and here I don't see anymore the *5 difference between simple tags and classic tags. I'll continue these tests tomorrow at work (perhaps there's some file scanning / reading in action - and since I'm with AV software...). - Tests results - Downloaded tomcat trunk sources from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/ Used sample project here http://forum.springsource.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4227d=1315397882 from this issue http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?114210-Roo-tagfiles-performance-issues. There are 4 different jsps in the test (one using tagfile, one using classic tag, etc...). Each one does 1000 loops and prints overall elapsed time. //timer.start c:forEach begin=1 end=1 appfield:inputS label=personne.nom field=personne.nom id=personne.nom value=THOMAS/ /c:forEach //sysout timer.elapsed Tomcat trunk * tagfile = 730 * classictag = 730 * simpletag = 740 * notag = 730 Tomcat 7.0.21 * tagfile = 700 * classictag = 720 * simpletag = 700 * notag = 750 - Mail original - De : Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 20h43 Objet : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles Ouch, that was fast ! Thanks very much ! Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? - Of course ! Donno if I'm doing it now or tomorrow morning though - I'm a bit ill at the moment ;( sources are in trunk, right ? (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/) - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 20h36 Objet : Re: Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 18:37, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks for taking your time to look this issue ! Adding a cache for annotation scanning (that was taking most of the time) was relatively simple. Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? Mark - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 19h13 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
One more test at home (usin Sun Jdk 1.6.23). Results are in nanosecond and correspond to generated JSP pages (loop with 1000 iteration is replaced with 1000 tags). With this test I have simpleTag = 10 * classicTag. An this ratio is the same in 7.0.21 or in trunk. trunk simple = 13461836 [http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-simpletag.jsp] classic= 1491251 [http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-classictag.jsp] tagfile= 13660309 [http://localhost:8080/tagfilesperf/generated/edit-tagfile.jsp] 7.0.21 simple = 12590453 classic = 1388338 tagfile = 15088080 More tomorrow, sorry to spam... - Mail original - De : Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 21h36 Objet : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles Sorry, no real difference. Even worse, I'm on my home computer and here I don't see anymore the *5 difference between simple tags and classic tags. I'll continue these tests tomorrow at work (perhaps there's some file scanning / reading in action - and since I'm with AV software...). - Tests results - Downloaded tomcat trunk sources from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/ Used sample project here http://forum.springsource.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4227d=1315397882 from this issue http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?114210-Roo-tagfiles-performance-issues. There are 4 different jsps in the test (one using tagfile, one using classic tag, etc...). Each one does 1000 loops and prints overall elapsed time. //timer.start c:forEach begin=1 end=1 appfield:inputS label=personne.nom field=personne.nom id=personne.nom value=THOMAS/ /c:forEach //sysout timer.elapsed Tomcat trunk * tagfile = 730 * classictag = 730 * simpletag = 740 * notag = 730 Tomcat 7.0.21 * tagfile = 700 * classictag = 720 * simpletag = 700 * notag = 750 - Mail original - De : Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 20h43 Objet : Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles Ouch, that was fast ! Thanks very much ! Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? - Of course ! Donno if I'm doing it now or tomorrow morning though - I'm a bit ill at the moment ;( sources are in trunk, right ? (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/) - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 20h36 Objet : Re: Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 18:37, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Thanks for taking your time to look this issue ! Adding a cache for annotation scanning (that was taking most of the time) was relatively simple. Are you willing to build Tomcat 7.0.x from source and see if the new cache works for you? Mark - Mail original - De : Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org À : Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org Cc : Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 19h13 Objet : Re: Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles On 07/09/2011 15:57, Remy Maucherat wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Gonzalez adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, I've noticed a performance difference between classic Tags and simple Tags in Tomcat 7.0.21 (also tested it on 7.0.6 with the same results). Simple tags or tagfiles execution is at 5 times superior to classic tag execution. Simple tags (and derivatives) are easier to write, but are not poolable. So regular tags are best if you're going to use them a lot. +1 A look with a profiler shows that a fair amount of time is spend in the InstanceManager with the non-poolable tags. We could probably speed that up with some caching. I'll take a look to see if the benefit is worth the complexity. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Re : Re : Performance issue in simpleTags and tagfiles
On 07/09/2011 20:36, Adrian Gonzalez wrote: Sorry, no real difference. Even worse, I'm on my home computer and here I don't see anymore the *5 difference between simple tags and classic tags. The figures I saw were: TestOP Me Cached tagfile 500 328 203 classic 100 141 156 simple 500 250 156 none94 140 156 A slight increase in the case where the cache isn't used and a reasonable improvement in the other cases. Performance tuning is always going to be system dependent. In this case I think there us enough evidence to justify putting in the cache - even if this is effectively a micro benchmark. I'll continue these tests tomorrow at work (perhaps there's some file scanning / reading in action - and since I'm with AV software...). I'd be very interested to see those results. - Tests results - Downloaded tomcat trunk sources from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/ That is actually 8.0.x but there is currently very little difference between that an 7.0.x with is at: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/ Cheers, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
