I'm really happy to see this issue being addressed, but it is important to remember, framework performance wasn't (isn't?) a primary goal for WebWork 2, and now Struts 2. Specific decisions were made to favor developer productivity and flexibility over performance such as a template engine-based, theme-capable tag rendering and rich expression language usage throughout.
Still, it is possible to do things like reimplement the tags using a pure Java template engine, which gives 2-3x performance gains, but in the end, you are left with very inflexible tags that are a pain to extend and customize. Of course, if you just use the simple theme, then this idea might still be attractive. Finally, it is worth repeating that in a typical web application, the framework should be such a small part of processing, but if it is not, those are the types of issues I'd like to really address. Don On 7/13/07, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, here's exactly why I hate benchmarking: it's never consistent! :) This time, everything compiled with JDK 1.6 (it's what I have installed along side 1.4.2) and all used 5000 samples (updated test plan to always do 5000 samples)... S1: 685 average, 142.3/sec throughput, 20.89 KB/sec So, an improvement there, maybe because of the JDK, maybe not. S2 w/OGNL 2.6: 1054 average, 87.3/sec throughput, 12.87 KB/sec That's better than the last run, but for no apparent reason! S2 W/OGNL 2.7: 1073 average, 85.8/sec throughput, 12.65 KB/sec Wuh?!? Ok, I think we can most likely dismiss the difference as within a statistical margin of difference, which means either (a) these tests are just flat-out flawed somehow, (b) the OGNL bump, at least as far as just a straight drop-in, makes no real difference, or (c) OGNL isn't being used to enough of an extent in this test to notice a difference (I'm frankly betting on that one). FYI, I've created JIRA ticket WW-2040... that way if others want to extend the apps, they can attach an updated version to the ticket so everyone can share. Frank cilquirm wrote: > Frank, would you care to give the same tests a shot with ognl 2.7 and > javassist in the mix. > > Although none of this is purely scientific, at least evaluations on that > regard give us some level of subjective information. > > The ognl 2.7 and javassist jar are available via the tapestry-4.2-libs > download : > > http://tapestry.apache.org/download.html > > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: >> 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] >> >> >> > -- -- 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! --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
