Sure, which jetty connector? Blocking is better because then test is more about httpclient. With other connector jetty uses more cpu and has more context switching.
Dan On 17 May 2014 20:15, "Oleg Kalnichevski" <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 00:13 +0100, Daniel Feist wrote: > > > Could you please find out if this difference is consistent regardless > of > > > the CPU core number used by the system? > > > > Done, see other email I didn't record all figures, but did run > > multiple times and records differences. > > > > > Honestly, there is really no significant differences between the two I > > > can think of. I cannot completely rule out a possibility of some green > > > men from Mars randomly inserting Thread#sleep() statements but I > > > consider it unlikely. I'll see if I can reproduce the issue locally. > > > > I couldn't imagine a difference but in testing on 32-core with > > BlockingChannelConnector I got: > > > > - 3.1 | 75 K TPS > > - 4.3.3 Minimal / 4.2.6 | 74 K TPS > > - 4.3.3 DefultHttpClient | 72 K TPS > > - 4.3.3 Builder (from your test) | 68 K TPS > > > > The difference is small, but it's an interesting problem, working out > > whats going on. 74 vs 75 is irrelevant, but 68 vs. 75 is bigger. > > > > >> I'm still not seeing a major issue with the contention i mentioned i'd > > >> seen in profiler, be an interesting experiment to test performance > > >> with 500 treads, both with/without proxies though. > > >> > > > > > > I'll give it a shot this weekend. > > > > Not sure you'll see any difference is cpu is constrained. If you do do > > it, I can test on 32-core box for you. > > > > Daniel > > I removed all dynamic proxies and got approximately 10% better > performance with my two CPU core PC. > > Could you please build HttpClient from my private experimental branch at > github and re-run your tests? > > https://github.com/ok2c/httpclient/tree/dyn_proxies > > https://github.com/ok2c/httpclient/commit/246095522504ddffe07caf70db4c051fa0d31872 > > Cheers > > Oleg > >
