On Monday October 02 2006 9:58 pm, Jiang, Ning (Willem) wrote: > The two machines are connect with 100M switch, if I remember right. > I think the test result will be limmited by the machines which run the > client side, because when I used top to monitor the client side machine, > its cpu was upto 90% when I started 10 client and the server side's cpu is > only 40%.
That makes sense if you are using 10 Client VM's instead of 10 threads in a single VM. The overhead (memory, cache misses, etc...) of that many VM's would definitely create a large hit on the client. The server would be running in a single VM so it can better user the processor caches and such. Dan > > Willem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kulp, John Daniel > Sent: 2006-10-2 (星期一) 11:07 > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Subject: Re: CXF & Celtix performance test result > > > Dan, > > I think the first number is the number of client threads running on the > client machine. Thus, in the echoString case, we're peaking around 8 > client threads. Keep in mind, both client and server are only dual > processor machines. > > Willem: can I ask how the two machines are connected? I did an ethereal > dump on the tcp stream and the echoString message involves 1568 bytes in > the ethernet payloads. At 2617/sec, that's 4.1MB/sec EACH WAY (if I did my > math right), plus overhead for the ethernet and tcp headers and such. > That would be saturating a 100MB half-duplex link. I'd like to make sure > we aren't actually hitting a networking limit or similar. I don't suppose > there is anyway to get them connected via gigabit? > > Thanks! > Dan > > On Saturday September 30 2006 10:25 pm, Dan Diephouse wrote: > > How many client threads are being run here? > > Thanks, > > - Dan > > > > Jiang, Ning (Willem) wrote: > > >I finally realized the mail list had remove my attached file. > > >I had to copy the test result to this mail, sorry for the format. > > > > > > Basic Type test (Echo String) > > > > > > Celtix 1.0 CXF 2.0M1 > > >Client Through put Response Time(ms) Through put Response Time > > >(ms) > > >1 244.26 4.09 599.09 1.67 > > >2 387.49 5.16 1119.08 1.79 > > >3 529.71 5.66 1541.06 1.95 > > >4 569.81 7.02 1904.97 2.1 > > >5 685.51 7.29 2175.04 2.3 > > >6 737.4 8.14 2377.22 2.52 > > >7 738.05 9.48 2539.41 2.76 > > >8 732.47 10.92 2617.16 3.06 > > >9 724.99 12.41 2572.39 3.5 > > >10 717.44 13.94 2521.87 3.97 > > > > > > > > > Complex Type test (Echo Struct) > > > > > > Celtix 1.0 CXF 2.0M1 > > >Client Through put Response Time(ms) Through put Response Time > > >(ms) > > >1 184.4 5.42 359.13 2.79 > > >2 314.26 6.36 660.66 3.03 > > >3 430.01 6.98 885.91 3.39 > > >4 497.89 8.03 1095.78 3.65 > > >5 571.39 8.75 1256.33 3.98 > > >6 607.29 9.88 1401.40 4.28 > > >7 607.18 11.53 1482.88 4.72 > > >8 632.96 12.64 1511.44 5.29 > > >9 595.55 15.11 1513.82 5.95 > > >10 636.09 15.72 1473.38 6.79 > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Jiang, Ning (Willem) > > >Sent: 2006-9-30 (星期六) 20:34 > > >To: [email protected] > > >Cc: > > >Subject: FW: CXF & Celtix performance test result > > > > > > > > >Sorry, I forgot to attache the result html. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Jiang, Ning (Willem) > > >Sent: 2006-9-30 (星期六) 5:27 > > >To: [email protected] > > >Cc: > > >Subject: CXF & Celtix performance test result > > > > > >Hi , > > > > > >I just finished the CXF performance test base on Dan Kulp's latest > > >performance tuning. > > >Here is the test result, attached as HTML. > > >It is great news that the result shows CXF is 2~3 times fastter than > > > Celtix. > > > > > >The test case is in the trunk/test/performance/. > > >Basic_Type just test echo string for 1K message > > >Complex_Type test echo struct for about 2K complex type message. > > > > > >Test had been done with 2 DELL Workstation 670 , Linux ES3.0, 2 CPU > > >2.8 GHZ, memory 2G > > >(one run as server the other run as client) > > > > > >Cheers, > > >Willem. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
