Hi, I got an answer from one of the guys over twitter.
They were using MyFaces 2.1.1, I am trying to find out if they used
Development stage or Production. I also gave him the hint to try
Myfaces 2.1.4-Snapshot.
It might be interesting to see their tests revisited with 2.1.4.
Werner
Am 10/14/11 11:40 AM, schrieb Mark Struberg:
I got to similar numbers WHEN I was in ProjectStaged.Development only. In this
case we have our DebugPhaseListener running and lots of other stuff as well.
Once I benched with PS.Production, the numbers were pretty well.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Punz<werner.p...@gmail.com>
To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: Web Framework Performance Comparision
Yes from what i gather one of the issues they had in the slides was the
overall page size. The question there is more along the lines what did
they count, just the rendered code, or also the includes.
I can help to reduce the size on the JSF.js side. We have some code
which is not directly active for JSF 2.1 and will very likely become
part of jsf 2.2 or 2.3. it can be used today already by adding config
params, Also we have some internationalization
of the internal error messages.
This code could be externalized into an addition js file for people who
need it. I think we might save around 20Kbytes that way.
I personally did not think that it was necessary due to the fact that
the js files usually are gzipped while still bigger than mojarra we
after gzipping the file talk about sizes of 10-30k etc...
In the end externalizing that code would have caused more burden on the
users than it would have helped. But given that mojarra just implements
the raw api and nothing else and does not take some corner conditions
into consideration and has no browser optimizations they are
significantly smaller in their jsf.js file and if our size is a problem
we can reduce it.
Werner
Am 10/13/11 11:07 PM, schrieb Leonardo Uribe:
Hi
I believe probably we already did that. The biggest bottleneck we had
was that renderers did many calls to map.get(). Mojarra had an
optimization in this part, but MyFaces do not until 2.0.9/2.1.3, so I
suppose with the latest code we have better numbers.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2011/10/13 Werner Punz<werner.p...@gmail.com>:
I would be interested as well, especially regarding their test setup,
we
basically doubled for instance our ajax performance between 2.0.4 and
the
current state of affairs.
So it might be interesting to see what testsetup they were using.
From a pure memory point of view we of course have a higher load on
the
browser because our ajax implementation deals with things mojarra does
not
and also has an oo layer underneath. But I added browser specific
optimisations so on modern browsers we should be slightly faster than
mojarra in raw ajax processing (at least my personal tests resembled
that
when I did the profiling), while mojarra is sligtly ahead on Firefox
3.5 and
IE6 and 7.
Just giving the numbers unfortunately does not help to see where their
bottleneck was they discovered.
Werner
Am 10/13/11 10:13 PM, schrieb Andy Schwartz:
Gang -
I recently got wind of the following web framework performance talk
that was presented at JavaOne:
https://oracleus.wingateweb.com/published/oracleus2011/sessions/24122/S24122_234496.pdf
I did not attend, but based on the slides it looks like the
presenters
did an very thorough/systematic job of evaluating
performance/scalability for a handful of web frameworks, including
JSF. (I also have to say that they slides are simply beautiful -
wow!)
I wanted to call attention to this talk because I am concerned
about
one aspect of the results. Looking at slide #73, it seems that the
presenters are seeing significant overhead in the MyFaces test runs
(ie. vs. equivalent runs in Mojarra). I don't have any details
other
than the $ numbers included in the slides, but seems quite possible
that there is some low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked (or
optimized).
Is anyone acquainted with the presenters? Perhaps it would be
worthwhile to contact them to see whether it would be possible to
take
a closer look at the test case?
Andy
