Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: user239 [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2014 21:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Async transport performance using cxf-rt-transports-http-hc > > Thanks, Sergey, yes, I'm actually using callbacks here, but looks like they > don't > require the async transport. The regular one (cxf-rt-transports-http) also > works > fine and shows similar (or even better) performance. > > I debugged it further and noticed that the regular (non-async) transport > always > creates 24 workqueue threads to execute the requests. I modified the test so > that the server now has a 5-second delay and the client only sends > 75 concurrent requests. Somehow the non-async transport managed to initiate > all 75 requests at the same time using only 24 threads! And they all completed > in 5.7 seconds. How is that possible? Does it actually somehow use NIO under > the hood?
Very interesting, I expect that async transport is slower for singly/low number of requests, but scale better. If number parallel requests are essentially high as number of available threads async transport should benefit. Yes, if cxf-rt-transports-http-hc module is found on the classpath, CXF will use NIO channel. Regards, Andrei. > > I also saw this > <http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Async-http-client-experiments- > td5711683.html> > threadby Daniel Kulp where he got 4x performance improvement by using the > async transport (from 35 seconds down to 9 seconds). But in my experiments > they are almost the same. Or maybe the regular transport became more > efficient since 2012? > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Async- > transport-performance-using-cxf-rt-transports-http-hc- > tp5751832p5751876.html > Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
