Hans Bergsten wrote: > Without pooling With pooling Reuse w/o overhead > ------------------------------------------------------------- > 5 threads > Avg.: 330 ms 349 ms N/A > Rate: 15.2/sec 13.6/sec N/A > > 20 threads > Avg.: 1,752 ms 1,446 ms 1,265 ms > Rate: 12.1/sec 13.6/sec 14.7/sec > > To me, this indicates that if you can avoid _all_ reuse overhead, > there's some performace to be gained from reuse but not much. With the
>From 1.2s to 1.7s there is about 35% difference. I would call this 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 it. > current implementation, however, the overhead seems to kill all gains > from creating fewer instances. I doubt increasing MAX_POOL_SIZE makes > much of a difference. Increasing it from the current 5 - it would make a difference. I agree - the "ideal" no overhead is harder to achieve, but I think the thread-local,no-sync case is close enough. I'll try to reproduce the test. BTW, how many requests did you make, and what was the max response time ( max is very affected by GC ) ? I usually do 5000 to warm up and 10.000 to run the test. This is a very good start, thanks for bringing this up. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
