Hi,
On 20/02/12 15:28, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi Krum
On 20/02/12 15:05, Bakalsky, Krum wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Wow! I tested your idea and it produced dramatically better results!
The roundtrip time for 404 requests decreased by a factor of 10 (from
0.500 seconds down to 0.030 seconds). That is a huge success for our
investigation, and I believe that our observation is really true that
the overhead is spent in the error handling code. Just out of
curiosity: with the same SimpleApplicationMapper:
Thanks for the confirmation, so we've identified the spot where the
problem is :-)
public class SimpleApplicationExceptionMapper implements
ExceptionMapper<WebApplicationException> {
@Override
public Response toResponse(WebApplicationException exception) {
return Response.status(404).build();
}
}
Jersey behaved very similarly to CXF in terms of roundtrip time.
However, without this class, Jersey performed even faster - most of
the times were 10 times faster, i.e. around 0.003 seconds, while in
the CXF case ... you already know it :) - 0.500 seconds
Forgot to comment to this one... I think the fact that both frameworks
show approximately the same time with SimpleApplicationExceptionMapper
in place and that Jersey scales really well without it is that Jersey
basically either writes to HTTP out stream or propagates the exception
up to the ServletException filter immediately if no custom mapper is
available.
In case of CXF the immediate propagation will also happen if no custom
mapper is available. The reason the default WebApplicationException
Mapper was installed was to do with the fact that few users were not
quite happy with having to write their custom mappers in order to report
differently to the exceptions generated at the runtime level or some of
the providers' level or indeed having to write a filter catching the
escaped exceptions there...
What I might need to do additionally is to introduce a contextual
property that will tell the runtime to ignore even the default
WebApplicationException mapper, for example, when the user wishes to
get all the exceptions propagated to the filter level, to simplify the
performance data comparison, etc
Cheers, Sergey
Thank a lot for your idea and suggestion! It definitely shed light on
where the discrepancies come from.
I've opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4121
I suspect now that it is the specific lines which get the basic warning
message from the resource bundle are main 'culprits', I guess I will
just have an internal final static String - will need to experiment a
bit...It is good even the default providers can be customized/replaced,
but I'll look into trying to make the default exception mapper
performing a bit better :-)
Thanks, Sergey
Kindest Regards,
Krum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: REST performance discrepancies between CXF and Jersey
Hi Krum,
On 17/02/12 15:26, Bakalsky, Krum wrote:
Hi to all Apache CXF users!,
I would kindly like to bring to your attention a particular problem
that we are currently being stuck into. We are experimenting with a
simple web application, which exposes its functionality via REST. We
are using JAX-RS/JSON, no SOAP, no JAX-WS. We deploy our application
on top of Tomcat 7, and test both against CXF 2.5.2 and Jersey as
REST frameworks.
For calculating our performance measurements, we simply execute REST
requests, and in the client we measure the time that the roundtrip
takes. Apart from that, on the server side, we measure as well the
time that our REST resource consumes, i.e. the method call time. In
summary, we have some huge differences between CXF and Jersey - in
favor of Jersey being much faster - in the cases where we test
against non-existing resources. In all other cases, the numbers we
got were really very close for the two REST frameworks.
But when testing against non-existing REST paths, the roundtrip time
in CXF case is approximately 0.5 seconds, while in the case of Jersey
it is 0.01 seconds. We think that this is quite strange, and probably
we are not using CXF in its proper configuration. Could you please
give us some hints ? Maybe we have to tune and tweak it a little bit,
so that we get the best out of it.
The server side time, in the case of CXF, is rather small - 0.001
seconds, so we wonder where is that half second spent in ? In our
application logic, in the case when the path is not correct, we throw
javax.ws.rs.WebApplicationException and with a debugger we saw that
this exception is getting caught in CXF, and heavily processed
further down the stack.
Are you aware of such kind of issues, with CXF handling the 404
situation in a very heavyweight manner ? Maybe it does some thorough
processing to try to map the URI to some existing REST resource, I
don't know ... maybe performance here could depend on the particular
JSON framework that is being used. ...
I suspect it could be the default WebApplicationExceptionMapper which is
to blame.
In CXF, a given Exception, once wrapped in a Response, is treated like
any other regular response, but I'm not sure it would explain the
difference.
Can you give me a favor please and register a custom
WebApplicationException mapper which would only return:
Response.status(exception.getStatus()).build() ?
Have a look please at the default mapper's code:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/frontend/jaxrs/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/jaxrs/impl/WebApplicationExceptionMapper.java
As you can see, we are trying to go to some length there to figure out
what and how to report a given exception and I reckon it all adds up to
the response time.
Please try eliminating the default mapper and let us know the results
Thanks, Sergey
Kindest Regards,
Krum.
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
