Hello Ben,

I remember reading about problems with particular JVM versions,
and with "stale connection checks" in this mailing list. But I didn't
track these issues, so someone else will have to help out. Or you
check the mailing list archive and the bugzilla database for known
issues. There's a good chance you'll find something about your
problem.

cheers,
  Roland






"Ben Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16.02.2004 07:30
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
 
        To:     "'Commons HttpClient Project'" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: GetMethod Performance


Thanks Michael and Roland for the quick responses.

Roland, in fact, that was a typo and it was not caused by the
initialization of HttpClient AFAIK.

I had very close result when I ran the whole thing on my laptop, which
runs WinXP. Both could finish in less than a second.

However, when I put exactly the same code to Sun Solaris 8 on a Sun
Blade 100, I got a totally different story. Test finishes quick when I
used Socket, but it takes significantly longer when httpClient was used.

Did I miss out something that I should do when I execute Java class from
console on Sun box? Or do they have a different JVM configuration?

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, 16 February 2004 5:25 PM
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Re: GetMethod Performance

Hi Ben,

that is indeed a big difference. Two questions:

1. The HttpClient example uses IP address 192.168.0.1,
   the Socket example connects to 192.168.0.11
   Is that a typo, or do you indeed access a different host?
   If that different host is a caching proxy, that would be an
   explanation.

2. Did you check how much of the delay is due to the
   initialization of HttpClient? Please set a checkpoint
   after "new HttpClient()" and before "new GetMethod".
   Since the client only has to be created once for your
   application, that would be a fairer comparison.

I trust you ran your examples immediately after one
another while there was not much load on the network.

cheers,
  Roland






"Ben Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16.02.2004 06:40
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
 
        To:     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        GetMethod Performance


Hi,

I have noticed significant performance difference between using
HttpClient and Socket.

I tried to use GetMethod to download a 2MB file from a Webserver sitting
in the LAN. When I do it with HttpClient, it takes around 13-15 seconds
while it will only take less than half a second with Socket.

I was running the code below on a Sun Blade 100 with Solaris 8
installed. J2SDK1.4.2_03 and HttpClient 2.0 final were used.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ben

HttpClient code:
----------------
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
GetMethod get = new
GetMethod("http://192.168.0.1/commons-httpclient-2.0-final.zip";);
 
int statusCode = client.executeMethod(get);
System.out.println("Status Code: " + statusCode);
int size = 0;
 
InputStream in = get.getResponseBodyAsStream();
byte [] data = new byte[10000];
int read = 0;
 
while ((read = in.read(data)) > 0) {
                 size += read;
}

in.close();
get.releaseConnection();

Socket Code:
------------
Socket soc = new Socket("192.168.0.11", 80);
InputStream in = soc.getInputStream();
OutputStream out = soc.getOutputStream();

String command = "GET
http://192.168.0.1/commons-httpclient-2.0-final.zip
HTTP/1.0\nUser-Agent: Jakarta Commons-HttpClient/2.0final\nHost:
10.0.3.11\n\n";
byte [] send = command.getBytes();

out.write(send);
byte b[] = new byte[4096];
int size = 0;
int count = 0;
while( (size = in.read(b)) >= 0) {
                 count += size;
}
in.close();
out.close();

soc.close();





---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]


Reply via email to