It's only loopback tests ? I wonder if the result would be the same on a real network.
BTW what would be the use case for writing buffer bigger than 64K ? That's sounding like a waste of memory for me. On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi ! > > I did some more tests, with different buffer size. Here are the results : > > MINA3 : > > 10b, 1M msg/s : 28,341 > 1kb, 1M msg/s : 28,884 > 10kb, 1M msg/s : 25,603 > 20kb, 1M msg/s : 21,238 > 50kb, 500k msg/s : 9,425 > 100kb, 200k msg/s : 7,637 > 200kb, 100k msg/s : 2,181 > 500kb, 50k msg/s : 980 > 1Mb, 20k msg/s : 462 > 10Mb, 2k msg/s : 37 > 64Mb, 500 msg/s : 7 > > MINA2 : > > 10b, 1M msg/s : 19,085 > 1kb, 1M msg/s : 19,409 > 10kb, 1M msg/s : 13,141 > 20kb, 1M msg/s : 9,679 > 50kb, 500k msg/s : 7,025 > 100kb, 200k msg/s : 4,444 > 200kb, 100k msg/s : 2,861 > 500kb, 50k msg/s : 1,550 > 1Mb, 20k msg/s : 753 > 10Mb, 2k msg/s : 76 > 64Mb, 500 msg/s : 11 > > > Netty3 : > > 10b, 1M msg/s : 26,010 > 1kb, 1M msg/s : 25,297 > 10kb, 1M msg/s : 19,883 > 20kb, 1M msg/s : 12,420 > 50kb, 500k msg/s : 7,058 > 100kb, 200k msg/s : 4,719 > 200kb, 100k msg/s : 3,078 > 500kb, 50k msg/s : 1,290 > 1Mb, 20k msg/s : 477 > 10Mb, 2k msg/s : 17 > 64Mb, 500 msg/s : 4 > > > I have run those tests more than once, and I haven't seen so much > variation in the results. > > It's interesting to see that all the frameworks have their shiny spots, > and dark ones. Typically, MINA 3 is faster up to message size < 200kb, > then Netty 3 takes the lead à 200kb, and interestingly, MINA 2 is faster > above 200kb. > > For messages <200kb, MIN3 is faster than Netty3 by 9% up to 71%. It's > also faster than MINA 2 by 34% up to 120%. > > Why do we gat those differences ? I can tell for MINA3 vs MINA 2 : MINA > 2 write the data after a having enqueued them, so yu will get more > select() calls, when MINA 3 tries its best to write the messages > immediately. For messages bigger than the Socket SendBufferSize, MINA 3 > does a copy into a DirectBuffer which gets allocated on the fly. It's a > costly operation when the message is big. MINA 2 tries to copy only > SendBuferSize bytes into the socket at each rounds. > > All in all, it's assumed that there is a Heap -> Direct buffer > conversion done inside the Channel, and that the Channel does cache some > DirectBuffer. > > I guess that we should be able to offer some configuration to the user > to tune the performances regardingthe kind of sent messages. > > One more thing : whatever processing is done on the chain or in the > IoHandler, it's quite likely that it will not be a bottleneck compared > to the time it takes to process a select(). During my profiling > sessions, I saw that the select() operation covered 95% of the global > CPU, and when we weren't spending franticly CPU cycles copying > HeapBuffers into DirectBuffers, the CPU System represented around 85% of > all the CPU. > > -- > Regards, Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com >
