Mehmet D. AKIN a écrit :
Still benchmarks presented in that document seems contradicting
Trustin's benchmarks. In the presentation it says Grizzly with Async
web is just a little faster than a "C based web server " but almost
two times faster and scalable than Mina.But Trustin's test also sho
On 5/24/07, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly
blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's views
on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
threading and ByteBuffer use.
I just wanted to reiterate that I didn't mean to be discouraging to the MINA
devs at all. If I hadn't come across the Grizzly tidbit, I was planning on
posting a "thank you" for writing such a kick-ass framework that's saving me
a ton of time, money, and stress.
Asyncweb rocks too, by the way.
Ashish Sharma wrote:
its strange to see how x vs y wars can generate so many responses.
if they are good we can adapt, if we are good we have nothing to worry.
competition is good
_
Vælg selv hvordan du vil kommunikere - skrift,
Hi,
MINA started a new trend in NIO based frameworks. It's elegant and I
am sure it can be further optimized for performance. What I care now
is how easily I can integrate it into my application and MINA with new
enhancements seems to be quite cool in this job.
And it's Apache!
On 5/24/07, Adam
As they say, don't shoot the messenger, deal wih the message.
John
On 5/25/07, Ashish Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
its strange to see how x vs y wars can generate so many responses.
if they are good we can adapt, if we are good we have nothing to worry.
On 5/25/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PR
its strange to see how x vs y wars can generate so many responses.
if they are good we can adapt, if we are good we have nothing to worry.
On 5/25/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Holger,
On 5/25/07, Holger Hoffstaette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:45:34 +090
Hi Holger,
On 5/25/07, Holger Hoffstaette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:45:34 +0900, Trustin Lee wrote:
> The HEAD revision of AsyncWeb highly depends on MINA and had significant
> performance improvement. It seems like they used older release (or didn't
> use a lightweight
On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:45:34 +0900, Trustin Lee wrote:
> The HEAD revision of AsyncWeb highly depends on MINA and had significant
> performance improvement. It seems like they used older release (or didn't
> use a lightweight asyncweb example). Moreover, I don't think MINA doesn't
> have any not
Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 11:45 -0400, Adam Fisk a écrit :
> The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly
> blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's views
> on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
> threading and Byt
On 5/25/07, John Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My thought was that when comparing Glassfish that is built on top of
Grizzly, and Tomcat with it own NIO engine you only get 10%
improvement. But when you compare AsyncWeb on top of MINA or Grizzly
you get a 50% difference. That would tell me th
Hi guys,
On 5/25/07, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Adam Fisk wrote:
> The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming
> Grizzly
> blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to
> people's views
> on it. They present some intere
Hi,
Just want to look at the bright side, this presentation also gives a
lot of proof
that Mina made right design decision up front.
For example, on slide 67 "Tip#6 To Thread or not to Thread", it said:
"We've benchmarked all of the above options and found that the one that
perform the best is
Oh I see. That is certainly odd. Maybe the previous post about Tomcat IO
being faster than Java IO is a clue?
On 5/24/07, John Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My thought was that when comparing Glassfish that is built on top of
Grizzly, and Tomcat with it own NIO engine you only get 10%
im
My thought was that when comparing Glassfish that is built on top of
Grizzly, and Tomcat with it own NIO engine you only get 10%
improvement. But when you compare AsyncWeb on top of MINA or Grizzly
you get a 50% difference. That would tell me that MINA is way slower
than the IO engine for Tomcat.
The benchmark was swapping MINA and Grizzly, both using AsyncWeb... I think
you're maybe thinking of Grizzly as synonymous with Glassfish? They pulled
it out into a generic NIO framework along the lines of MINA.
On 5/24/07, John Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK. I was looking at the Tomc
OK. I was looking at the Tomcat vd grizzly benchmark. But then its a
bit strange. If your'e only 10% faster than tomcat but 50% faster than
MINA. That 50% is with AsyncWeb on MINA. So its not a bench mark of
MINA alone the application on MINA.
I chose MINA for a simple fast scalable server that w
I hear you. Sun's generally just annoying. It would just probably be worth
taking a look under the hood to see if there's any real magic there
regardless of all th politics. Wish I could volunteer to do it, but I've
got a startup to run!
Thanks.
-Adam
On 5/24/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTE
HmnnI don't think you're reading the benchmarks correctly. Slide 19
shows an improvement of over 50% with Grizzly.
I think the MINA coders should feel very proud too. I love the framework
and have no plans to stop using it.
-Adam
On 5/24/07, John Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I th
Oh yes I agree with you completely. I was really referring to how
benchmarks are
being used as marketing tools and published to discredit other projects.
Also I
believe that there are jewels at java.net as well. And you read me right:
I'm no fan
of SUN nor it's "open source" efforts.
Back in t
I think that the MINA coders should feel very proud. If I read the
benchmarks correct then we are talking about 10% difference and that's
within the margin of error of almost anything. Considering the issues
mentioned previously about tuning for HTTP probably MINA and Grizzly
are equals, at a frac
I agree on the tendency to manipulate benchmarks, but that doesn't mean
benchmarks aren't a useful tool. How else can we evaluate performance? I
guess I'm most curious about what the two projects might be able to learn
from each other. I would suspect MINA's APIs are significantly easier to
use
On 5/24/07, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Fisk wrote:
> The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly
> blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's
views
> on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
> th
Adam Fisk wrote:
The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly
blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's views
on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
threading and ByteBuffer use.
http://developers.sun.com/learn
On May 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Adam Fisk wrote:
The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming
Grizzly
blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to
people's views
on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
threading and ByteBuffer use.
The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly
blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's views
on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector
threading and ByteBuffer use.
http://developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/
26 matches
Mail list logo
