RE: [axis2] MTOM Performance
Hello All, With the lack of any response from the group, should I assume that there has been NO benchmarking done on Axis2/MTOM at all? If there has been some, can somebody please point me to it? Sowmi From: Thallapragada, Sowmi Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:52 PM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: RE: [axis2] MTOM Performance I'd appreciate any pointers regarding this. Thanks! From: Thallapragada, Sowmi Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:34 AM To: 'axis-user@ws.apache.org' Subject: [axis2] MTOM Performance Can anyone point me to recent performance metrics on Axis2 (1.4.x) /MTOM? - Sowmi
RE: [axis2] MTOM Performance
I'd appreciate any pointers regarding this. Thanks! From: Thallapragada, Sowmi Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:34 AM To: 'axis-user@ws.apache.org' Subject: [axis2] MTOM Performance Can anyone point me to recent performance metrics on Axis2 (1.4.x) /MTOM? - Sowmi
[axis2] MTOM Performance
Can anyone point me to recent performance metrics on Axis2 (1.4.x) /MTOM? - Sowmi
RE: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Thilina - thanks for this information. Betsy -Original Message- From: Thilina Gunarathne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:18 AM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance I did a quick test against the snapshots and the results I got were in the range of ~6.5 MB/s, which translates in to 375 to 400 MB/Min.. My environments is Ubuntu Linux 6.10 java version "1.5.0_10" file system: ext3 Apache Tomcat 5.5.20 FileCacheThreshold 4 bytes The program I used was the SoapWithAttachments sample of Axis2. Thanks, Thilina On 3/20/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Thilina. The latest Axiom jars make a 3x difference. I'm now > seeing about 10mb/minute. > Are more optimizations planned? > Betsy > > -Original Message- > From: Thilina Gunarathne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:16 AM > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance > > Betsy, > > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. > I did some testing after the 1.0 release and the numbers I got were > ~20 mb/min... MAy be something went wrong from 1.0 to 1.1... > > It would be really great if you can let us know the transfer rates you > got when using the latest axiom jars [1].. > > ~Thilina > ttp://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axio > m-api-SNAPSHOT.jar > http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi > om-dom-SNAPSHOT.jar > http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi > om-impl-SNAPSHOT.jar > > > > On 3/19/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. > > > I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a > > > source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. > I am > > > just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or > > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. > > > Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a > MIME > > > section; MTOM is enabled. > > > So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and > is > > > there anything to be done about it? > > > Thanks. > > > Betsy > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM > > > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance > > > > > > Several reasons :-) > > > > > > First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to > > > speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the > disk > > > manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, > as > > > it will never have direct access to the client file system. > > > > > > Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving > > > aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice > > > that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good > > > testcase. > > > > > > On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client > is > > > correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file > > > contents to the server at the same time it is reading it > (concurrently), > > > so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. > > > > > > On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a > file > > > while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole > file > > > is received in the server side, your service will usually move the > file > > > to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, > the > > > service will perform even worse ;-) > > > > > > Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and > write > > > the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make > your > > > test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. > > > > > > I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: > > > > > > * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different > (physical) > > > disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several > > > machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into > > > account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per > > > minute ;-) > > > >
Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
I did a quick test against the snapshots and the results I got were in the range of ~6.5 MB/s, which translates in to 375 to 400 MB/Min.. My environments is Ubuntu Linux 6.10 java version "1.5.0_10" file system: ext3 Apache Tomcat 5.5.20 FileCacheThreshold 4 bytes The program I used was the SoapWithAttachments sample of Axis2. Thanks, Thilina On 3/20/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks, Thilina. The latest Axiom jars make a 3x difference. I'm now seeing about 10mb/minute. Are more optimizations planned? Betsy -Original Message- From: Thilina Gunarathne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:16 AM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance Betsy, > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. I did some testing after the 1.0 release and the numbers I got were ~20 mb/min... MAy be something went wrong from 1.0 to 1.1... It would be really great if you can let us know the transfer rates you got when using the latest axiom jars [1].. ~Thilina ttp://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axio m-api-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi om-dom-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi om-impl-SNAPSHOT.jar > On 3/19/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. > > I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a > > source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. I am > > just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. > > Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a MIME > > section; MTOM is enabled. > > So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and is > > there anything to be done about it? > > Thanks. > > Betsy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM > > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance > > > > Several reasons :-) > > > > First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to > > speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk > > manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as > > it will never have direct access to the client file system. > > > > Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving > > aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice > > that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good > > testcase. > > > > On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is > > correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file > > contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), > > so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. > > > > On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file > > while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file > > is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file > > to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the > > service will perform even worse ;-) > > > > Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write > > the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your > > test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. > > > > I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: > > > > * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) > > disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several > > machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into > > account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per > > minute ;-) > > > > * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another > > approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. > > For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can > > implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, > > instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to > > test your server side performance without the client interfering in your > > disk accesses. > > > > * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In > > many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use > > the machine
RE: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Thanks, Thilina. The latest Axiom jars make a 3x difference. I'm now seeing about 10mb/minute. Are more optimizations planned? Betsy -Original Message- From: Thilina Gunarathne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:16 AM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance Betsy, > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. I did some testing after the 1.0 release and the numbers I got were ~20 mb/min... MAy be something went wrong from 1.0 to 1.1... It would be really great if you can let us know the transfer rates you got when using the latest axiom jars [1].. ~Thilina ttp://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axio m-api-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi om-dom-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axi om-impl-SNAPSHOT.jar > On 3/19/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. > > I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a > > source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. I am > > just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or > > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. > > Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a MIME > > section; MTOM is enabled. > > So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and is > > there anything to be done about it? > > Thanks. > > Betsy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM > > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance > > > > Several reasons :-) > > > > First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to > > speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk > > manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as > > it will never have direct access to the client file system. > > > > Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving > > aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice > > that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good > > testcase. > > > > On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is > > correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file > > contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), > > so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. > > > > On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file > > while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file > > is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file > > to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the > > service will perform even worse ;-) > > > > Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write > > the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your > > test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. > > > > I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: > > > > * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) > > disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several > > machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into > > account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per > > minute ;-) > > > > * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another > > approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. > > For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can > > implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, > > instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to > > test your server side performance without the client interfering in your > > disk accesses. > > > > * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In > > many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use > > the machine public IP address. > > > > * Make sure you do your best to "move" the file in the server side to > > its final location instead of copying it. The performance is totally > > different. > > > > Hope this helps you, > > Rodrigo Ruiz > > > > Betsy Frey wrote: > > > I&#
Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Betsy, > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. I did some testing after the 1.0 release and the numbers I got were ~20 mb/min... MAy be something went wrong from 1.0 to 1.1... It would be really great if you can let us know the transfer rates you got when using the latest axiom jars [1].. ~Thilina ttp://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axiom-api-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axiom-dom-SNAPSHOT.jar http://people.apache.org/repository/org.apache.ws.commons.axiom/jars/axiom-impl-SNAPSHOT.jar On 3/19/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. > I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a > source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. I am > just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or > copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. > Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a MIME > section; MTOM is enabled. > So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and is > there anything to be done about it? > Thanks. > Betsy > > -Original Message- > From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM > To: axis-user@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance > > Several reasons :-) > > First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to > speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk > manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as > it will never have direct access to the client file system. > > Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving > aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice > that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good > testcase. > > On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is > correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file > contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), > so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. > > On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file > while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file > is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file > to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the > service will perform even worse ;-) > > Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write > the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your > test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. > > I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: > > * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) > disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several > machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into > account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per > minute ;-) > > * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another > approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. > For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can > implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, > instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to > test your server side performance without the client interfering in your > disk accesses. > > * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In > many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use > the machine public IP address. > > * Make sure you do your best to "move" the file in the server side to > its final location instead of copying it. The performance is totally > different. > > Hope this helps you, > Rodrigo Ruiz > > Betsy Frey wrote: > > I've just made some measurements, transferring files using MTOM in > Axis2 > > on tomcat. My client and servlet are on the same machine. > Attachments > > are cached. For files of 1mb or more, the transfer rate, > > client-to-servlet, is about 3.7mb per minute. In contrast, a file > > system copy transfers at about 2.5gb per minute: 675 times faster > than > > Axis2. > > Why is MTOM performance is so sluggish? > > Thanks for any assistance, > > Betsy > > > > > > > > ** > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Please use the latest Axiom jars... I fixed some major performance issues in the file caching lately... ~Thilina On 3/19/07, Betsy Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. I am just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a MIME section; MTOM is enabled. So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and is there anything to be done about it? Thanks. Betsy -Original Message- From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance Several reasons :-) First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as it will never have direct access to the client file system. Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good testcase. On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the service will perform even worse ;-) Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per minute ;-) * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to test your server side performance without the client interfering in your disk accesses. * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use the machine public IP address. * Make sure you do your best to "move" the file in the server side to its final location instead of copying it. The performance is totally different. Hope this helps you, Rodrigo Ruiz Betsy Frey wrote: > I've just made some measurements, transferring files using MTOM in Axis2 > on tomcat. My client and servlet are on the same machine. Attachments > are cached. For files of 1mb or more, the transfer rate, > client-to-servlet, is about 3.7mb per minute. In contrast, a file > system copy transfers at about 2.5gb per minute: 675 times faster than > Axis2. > Why is MTOM performance is so sluggish? > Thanks for any assistance, > Betsy > > > > ** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --- GRID SYSTEMS, S.A. Rodrigo Ruiz Parc Bit - Edificio 17 Research Coordinator 07121 Palma de Mallorca[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baleares - Spain Tel: +34 971 435 085 http://www.gridsystems.com/Fax: +34 971 435 082 --- - To u
RE: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Thanks, Rodirigo, but the problem is not my disks. I changed the code to generate bytes on the fly, instead of from a source file. I changed the reference from localhost to 127.0.0.1. I am just looking at the file in the attachment directory; not moving or copying it. I continue to see it grow by about 3.7mb/minute. Separately, I have confirmed that the transfer is in binary in a MIME section; MTOM is enabled. So the question remains: why is MTOM performance so sluggish, and is there anything to be done about it? Thanks. Betsy -Original Message- From: Rodrigo Ruiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:57 AM To: axis-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance Several reasons :-) First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as it will never have direct access to the client file system. Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good testcase. On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the service will perform even worse ;-) Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per minute ;-) * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to test your server side performance without the client interfering in your disk accesses. * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use the machine public IP address. * Make sure you do your best to "move" the file in the server side to its final location instead of copying it. The performance is totally different. Hope this helps you, Rodrigo Ruiz Betsy Frey wrote: > I've just made some measurements, transferring files using MTOM in Axis2 > on tomcat. My client and servlet are on the same machine. Attachments > are cached. For files of 1mb or more, the transfer rate, > client-to-servlet, is about 3.7mb per minute. In contrast, a file > system copy transfers at about 2.5gb per minute: 675 times faster than > Axis2. > Why is MTOM performance is so sluggish? > Thanks for any assistance, > Betsy > > > > ** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --- GRID SYSTEMS, S.A. Rodrigo Ruiz Parc Bit - Edificio 17 Research Coordinator 07121 Palma de Mallorca[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baleares - Spain Tel: +34 971 435 085 http://www.gridsystems.com/Fax: +34 971 435 082 --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AXIS2] MTOM performance
Several reasons :-) First, a file system copy can make use of low-level OS mechanisms to speed up transfers, and even in some cases, delegate the job to the disk manager chipset. You will never get these speeds with a web service, as it will never have direct access to the client file system. Said this, if you think about what the client and server do, leaving aside the overhead from XML transfer and processing, you will notice that having the client and server on the same machine is not a good testcase. On one side, the client must read the file from disk. If the client is correctly configured and programmed, the client will send the file contents to the server at the same time it is reading it (concurrently), so to avoid putting the whole file in memory. On the other side, the server will write the incoming bytes to a file while it is receiving the client request. Finally, once the whole file is received in the server side, your service will usually move the file to its final destination. If you copy the file instead of moving it, the service will perform even worse ;-) Now, if you join both sides, you will see the system must read and write the same file at different locations of the disk. This will make your test waste a lot of time just in disk head seeks. I would propose you to make sure that you follow these guides: * Make sure reads and writes are, at least, from/to different (physical) disks. If you have only one disk per machine, but you have several machines, try to put client and server in different hosts. Take into account that a fast ethernet bandwidth is far better than 3.7MB per minute ;-) * If you want to do some tests for only one of the sides, another approach could be to create mockups for the file readers and writers. For example, if you use a DataHandler in the client side, you can implement a fake DataSource that generates random bytes on the fly, instead of reading them from a file. Such a DataSource will allow you to test your server side performance without the client interfering in your disk accesses. * Always use the localhost address (127.0.0.1) to contact the server. In many environments you will get different (and worse) results if you use the machine public IP address. * Make sure you do your best to "move" the file in the server side to its final location instead of copying it. The performance is totally different. Hope this helps you, Rodrigo Ruiz Betsy Frey wrote: > I've just made some measurements, transferring files using MTOM in Axis2 > on tomcat. My client and servlet are on the same machine. Attachments > are cached. For files of 1mb or more, the transfer rate, > client-to-servlet, is about 3.7mb per minute. In contrast, a file > system copy transfers at about 2.5gb per minute: 675 times faster than > Axis2. > Why is MTOM performance is so sluggish? > Thanks for any assistance, > Betsy > > > > ** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender > by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --- GRID SYSTEMS, S.A. Rodrigo Ruiz Parc Bit - Edificio 17 Research Coordinator 07121 Palma de Mallorca[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baleares - Spain Tel: +34 971 435 085 http://www.gridsystems.com/Fax: +34 971 435 082 --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[AXIS2] MTOM performance
I've just made some measurements, transferring files using MTOM in Axis2 on tomcat. My client and servlet are on the same machine. Attachments are cached. For files of 1mb or more, the transfer rate, client-to-servlet, is about 3.7mb per minute. In contrast, a file system copy transfers at about 2.5gb per minute: 675 times faster than Axis2. Why is MTOM performance is so sluggish? Thanks for any assistance, Betsy ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
