Costin Manolache wrote:
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
[...]
In an ideal world, all core tags would be recyclable and garbage-free -
that may allow them to run at comparable speed with a hard-coded page.
I think it's more important to implement open coding of JSTL, i.e.
I haven't read all the posts on this discussion, but here's some facts from personal
observations.
for pages with only a few tags, ie less than 30, tag pooling doesn't help. On the
otherhand, if your page has 100+ tags, it improves performance. Some of the pages I
benchmarked with had about
Peter Lin wrote:
I haven't read all the posts on this discussion, but here's some facts
from personal observations.
for pages with only a few tags, ie less than 30, tag pooling doesn't help.
On the otherhand, if your page has 100+ tags, it improves performance.
Some of the pages I
these were all JSTL tags. Back when I ran the tests, I posted some of the results. I
did tests that were synthetic, ie out 100 JSTL out tags in one page. Others were
based on an actual page layout with lots of markup logic that use jstl c:choose in
conjunction with jslt xml tags.
the
Costin Manolache wrote:
[...]
In an ideal world, all core tags would be recyclable and garbage-free -
that may allow them to run at comparable speed with a hard-coded page.
I think it's more important to implement open coding of JSTL, i.e.
generate if and for statement instead of using c:if and
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
[...]
In an ideal world, all core tags would be recyclable and garbage-free -
that may allow them to run at comparable speed with a hard-coded page.
I think it's more important to implement open coding of JSTL, i.e.
generate if and for
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Without pooling With pooling Reuse w/o overhead
-
5 threads
Avg.: 330 ms349 ms N/A
Rate:15.2/sec 13.6/sec N/A
20
Interesting. Your test JSP page looks like a valid test.
There is no data about GC in your tests, of course GC can happen at any time.
I would be interested in seeing the tests run with -Xincgc and -Xverbose:gc.
Then run a high enough volume of tests that a Full GC gets triggered a dozen
times
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
Interesting. Your test JSP page looks like a valid test.
Good.
There is no data about GC in your tests, of course GC can happen at any
time.
I would be interested in seeing the tests run with -Xincgc and
-Xverbose:gc.
Then run a high enough volume of tests that a Full
Costin Manolache wrote:
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Without pooling With pooling Reuse w/o overhead
-
5 threads
Avg.: 330 ms349 ms N/A
Rate:15.2/sec 13.6/sec
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
quite significant. Even between 1.4 and 1.7 - you have 20%. Try to
increase the thread count to 100 - and you'll see this going up.
The difference ( 0.5s ) is probably 2-3 times the response time of
apache for a static page. And most users will feel
Hans Bergsten wrote:
Without pooling With pooling Reuse w/o overhead
-
5 threads
Avg.: 330 ms349 ms N/A
Rate:15.2/sec 13.6/sec N/A
20 threads
12 matches
Mail list logo
