Perfect! This is an excellent start. I think both should be compiled with 1.6.0. That will immediately remove that element of difference between the two.
James On Thu Jul 12 15:22 , 'Frank W. Zammetti' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >Dunno if this might help, but: > >http://www.omnytex.com/struts_benchmarking.zip > >In it you'll find two applications, one for S1 (1.3.8) and one for S2 >(2.0.8)... they are both (I think!) pretty much equivalent, and about as >simplistic as you can get. Also included is a JMeter test plan to run >against them (just disable one or the other thread group, wouldn't want >to test them both at the same time!). > >Just ran a quick-and-dirty comparison of the two using the test plan... >I ran 100 users with no ramp-up... local Tomcat instance (6.0.13)... the >one difference is that the S1 version was compiled with JDK 1.4.2, and >the S2 version with 1.6.0, so there's at least one potentially big >variance right up front... here's what I saw: > >S1 results: >4256 samples, 913 average, 108.6/sec throughput, 16.01 KB/sec > >S2 results: >4165 samples, 1974 average, 50.0/sec throughput, 7.38 KB/sec > >I'm not claiming this to be the perfect test, nor do I believe there's >not some flaws in there (benchmarking is always a tough thing to get >quite right, especially trying to do a comparison like this)... but, >unless someone can point out some obvious mistakes I made, the numbers >don't lie: S2 *looks*, *on the surface* at least, to be inherently twice >as slow as S1. > >I'm not trying to make any sensational claims here, and again, I may >have totally blown it in the first place (I did throw this together in >about 30 minutes after all), but if we can use this as a basis going >forward, maybe build it up as a more expansive, realistic and solid >benchmarking suite, then it's all good in the end. > >Anyway, it's there, if anyone's interested. > >Frank > >-- >Frank W. Zammetti >Founder and Chief Software Architect >Omnytex Technologies >http://www.omnytex.com >AIM/Yahoo: fzammetti >MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology" > (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1) >and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects" > (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4) >Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net > Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! > >Ing. Andrea Vettori wrote: >> >> Il giorno 12/lug/07, alle ore 16:31, Guillaume Carré ha scritto: >> >>> 2007/7/12, Ing. Andrea Vettori [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Compared to nothing... they are pure numbers. They are simply just >>>> good enought (to me). >>>> >>>> If we don't have this in mind we should use assember for everything :) >>> >>> what I meant was: maybe it could be a good idea to redevelop your >>> screens with, say struts 1 for example, and compare the results >> >> mmmm I can't do that... simply don't have the time... :) >> >> >>>> In the high load test, after 10 seconds you have about 90 users (the >>>> other 10 should have finished). Having a response time of 2,5 seconds >>>> for a db search and result display under such load seems very good to >>>> me. >>>> >>>> Don't you ? >>> >>> it depends :-) >>> >>> "2.5s" doesn't say much to me, I would need to know how much time is >>> consumed in your DB requests, how much time is consumed in your >>> service layer, etc etc. >>> >>> Is it 90 users really active at the same time, meaning using 90 >>> threads on the server?if it is, do you have at least 90 connections in >>> your pool? >>> or did you put think times in your tests? >> >> >> >> No think time... >> >> I have 250 threads but I have a limit of 50 connections on my pool. I'll >> try to raise >> the number of maximum connection to see if the MP3 list test gets better. >> >> However I think that struts alone is performing well for my app; don't >> know if it's because >> i'm using only few OGNL expressions on my jsp pages. >> >> -- >> Ing. Andrea Vettori >> Consulente per l'Information Technology >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> --No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: >> 269.10.4/897 - Release Date: 7/11/2007 9:57 PM >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
