Yes. To have double the performance in a binary transport is also what I
would expect.
I also think the performance you measured for CXF should be fine.

I wonder why ECF and Amdatu would be so much slower. Maybe there is just
something wrong with the setup.

Christian

2016-02-16 21:56 GMT+01:00 Johannes Utzig <[email protected]>:

> @Christian
>
> to mitigate the effects of the hotspot compiler I always made sure to
> execute the test multiple times (easy enough since it is a karaf command)
> and only used the number once it stabilized (typically after the 3rd run
> with 5000 invocations).
>
> The only exception was ECF generic, where it did not stabilize for yet to
> clearify reasons. There the best run was usually the 2nd, so I used that
> one.
>
> Our test is passing a random String[] as the parameter and receiving a
> random String[] as the return value to emulate some payload. Given that
> SOAP
> is less compact than binary RMI I think 50% of the RMI performance is
> actually a great result and as you can see CXF was a lot faster in our test
> than the other implementations (except for the redhat one).
> I have to look up the exact number again, but I think it was in the area of
> 2200ms for 5000 invocations in 5 threads, or 2272 calls/s which - depending
> on the payload - is not that far from your result of 4000 calls/s - for
> which you used 20 threads if I understood that correctly.
>
> As already promised to Scott, I will push the test to a github repo as soon
> as possible.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Proposal-Lightweight-standalone-remote-OSGi-implementation-for-karaf-cellar-tp4045343p4045404.html
> Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 
-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>

Reply via email to