I think the point is that the median time keeps rising. Whereas in JSP it doesn't, signifying some kind of leak in myfaces or the use of it...
On a pure performance level I'd love to see how JSF stacks against Tapestry which takes a pooled-backing bean approach. I am convinced that creating and destroying hundreds (possibly thousands) of request-scoped backing beans every second WILL cause JSF scaling problems despite what craig has said in the past regarding bb's intention of being lightweight (the problem is, in a practical environment it is often hard to avoid heavyweight/work-heavy controllers--especially if they are EJB backed). -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Monday, 10 July 2006 4:17 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: JSF Performance Problems Faclets gives you +10 -> 15% more On 7/9/06, Yee CN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Is the result with Myfaces/JSP? Can somebody provide performance comparison > with Myfaces/Facelets? > > > > JSF is still a new technology, and there are still plenty of rooms for > improvements. Furthermore the performance differential won't be as drastic > once we factor in business logic, persistence, AJAX etc. > > > > IMHO reduce development time is still the most important factor to consider. > > > > Regards, > > Yee > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: jfaronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:11 AM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: JSF Performance Problems > > > > > > > > I grabbed the attachments from the original performance bug > https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3 > and ran some JMeter tests against the "JSP only" and the JSF versions. The > pages are really simple, the JSP version outputs a page which is visually > identical to the JSF page. The table in question had 10 columns and 50 - 200 > rows. Not a huge amount of data. I used MyFaces 1.1.3 as the JSF > implementation and ran the test in JBoss 4.0.4 GA running on JDK 1.4.2. > Here's the results: > > Table Rows Average [ms] Median [ms] Hits / Min Samples > JSF Testcase 50 36 30 1300 5007 > JSP Testcase 50 14 10 4030 5001 > JSF Testcase 100 56 60 1050 5001 > JSP Testcase 100 21 20 2700 5001 > JSF Testcase 200 100 100 590 5001 > JSP Testcase 200 26 30 2170 5001 > > > This data confirms the discussion in the sun forum. The JSF version started > out nearly three times slower than the JSP page. The relative performance of > the JSF version degraded to nearly four times slower as table rows were > added. So if you are thinking about adopting JSF you should be aware of the > performance hit and make sure that you can architect around the problem or > get the performance benchmarks adjusted. Perceived performance is important > in real life projects so it's more than a theoretical problem. I'd also like > to know if anybody has ideas or code samples that make JSF perform better? > ________________________________ > > > View this message in context: JSF Performance Problems > Sent from the MyFaces - Users forum at Nabble.com. > -- Matthias Wessendorf futher stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.
