From basic experience I found that using a single engine, using JavaScript code to create the new threads and using loadWithNewGlobal to start each thread gave the best overall performance.
- Jim > On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Frantzius, Jörg <joerg.frantz...@aperto.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > for our application we’re about to implement a global-per-thread on single > engine approach, and I’d be very thankful if someone in the know could share > some insights on whether this is worth the effort when compared to engine-per > thread (as the latter seems much more easy to implement for us). > > More precisely the question is whether a single engine with multiple > ScriptContexts is substantially more resource-efficient than multiple engines > (each with their own ScriptContext)? Does Nashorn e.g. share > code-optimization between engines? Or does it share code-optimization between > ScriptContexts on a single engine in the first place? > > Also it would be great to know about the memory-footprint of the engine, e.g. > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24116672/how-much-memory-does-a-nashorn-scriptengine-use > seems to say that an empty engine is ~324KB, but I’d expect that to be > higher when it is actually executing code. > > Thanks for any insights + regards, > Jörg > > > --- > > Dipl. Inf. Jörg von Frantzius, Technical Director > > E-Mail joerg.frantz...@aperto.com > > Phone +49 30 283921-318 > Fax +49 30 283921-29 > > Aperto GmbH – An IBM Company > Chausseestraße 5, D-10115 Berlin > http://www.aperto.com<http://www.aperto.de/> > http://www.facebook.com/aperto > https://www.xing.com/companies/apertoag > > HRB 77049 B, AG Berlin Charlottenburg > Geschäftsführer: Dirk Buddensiek, Kai Großmann, Stephan Haagen, Daniel Simon >
