Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Thanks for clarifying... that makes sense. I guess I didn't quite understand what he was doing. On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:54 AM, brett.wooldridge < brett.wooldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not high data rates, but large arrays. He said he sends different > length arrays containing a pojo that itself contains 10 strings of 10 > chars average. In the error case, that is an array with 100,000 > elements, which are themselves objects with 10 strings of 10 chars > each. That's a 10meg "object" being serialized over GWT-RPC -- I'm > not surprised that various JavaScript engines fell over. > > Again, it's not about data rate, but object size. The only > implication for data rate was that a 10 element array containing 10 > pojos with 10 strings of 10 characters took between 10-30ms to send. > Interesting but not very informative. Sending that same array in a > loop 1000 times would be more interesting. Likely there are runtime > optimizations -- especially on the Java side, but also on browsers > like Safari -- that will start to kick-in once the engine has profiled > what is going on. > > Brett > > > On Sep 15, 3:25 am, John Ivens wrote: > > Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high > > data rates? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki wrote: > > > > > Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing > > > whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server > > > (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each > > > with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds > > > for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From > > > 10 to 100 000 objects). > > > I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. > > > > > lenght: | 10100 10001 10 > > > -- > > > Fire Fox | 1830 120 1200error > > > Chrome |1014 68 900 24000 > > > IE| 1340 230 330015 > > > Opera | 3247 130 130027700 > > > "hosted" | 340250025000 249000 3270898 > > > Netscape|20 47 220 2800error > > > Safari | 10 19 70 1300error > > > > > ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. > > > > > On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > > > > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > > > > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > > > > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > > > > request handler > > > > > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > > > > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > > > > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > > > > out > > > > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with > server > > > > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > > > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using > GWT- > > > > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Not high data rates, but large arrays. He said he sends different length arrays containing a pojo that itself contains 10 strings of 10 chars average. In the error case, that is an array with 100,000 elements, which are themselves objects with 10 strings of 10 chars each. That's a 10meg "object" being serialized over GWT-RPC -- I'm not surprised that various JavaScript engines fell over. Again, it's not about data rate, but object size. The only implication for data rate was that a 10 element array containing 10 pojos with 10 strings of 10 characters took between 10-30ms to send. Interesting but not very informative. Sending that same array in a loop 1000 times would be more interesting. Likely there are runtime optimizations -- especially on the Java side, but also on browsers like Safari -- that will start to kick-in once the engine has profiled what is going on. Brett On Sep 15, 3:25 am, John Ivens wrote: > Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high > data rates? > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki wrote: > > > Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing > > whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server > > (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each > > with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds > > for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From > > 10 to 100 000 objects). > > I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. > > > lenght: | 10 100 1000 1 10 > > -- > > Fire Fox | 18 30 120 1200 error > > Chrome | 10 14 68 900 24000 > > IE | 13 40 230 3300 15 > > Opera | 32 47 130 1300 27700 > > "hosted" | 340 2500 25000 249000 3270898 > > Netscape| 20 47 220 2800 error > > Safari | 10 19 70 1300 error > > > ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. > > > On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > > > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > > > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > > > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > > > request handler > > > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > > > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > > > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > > > out > > > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Hi, You should avoid sending so much data between the client and server and certainly in one RPC call. Right now RPC deserializes in one block and thus blocks the JS thread from doing anything else. There is a big rework happening in GWT 2.0 to fix a few of the issues with RPC of bigger and more complex object types. David On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Jason A. Beranek wrote: > > As Thomas Boyer said, there is no way to answer the question of which > is better performance wise. Assuming serialization technologies are > equivalent for both performance and message size, all other > performance costs (e.g., latency, throughput) depend on the server > environment, including the hardware, software, and application code. > Likewise, pure request handling performance comes from a combination > of the performance costs. > > To me, the benefit to GWT RPC is the abstraction provided. Objects in > the GWT client and server code are the same types, providing some > productivity benefits when coding since data transfer objects are not > required. If these productivity benefits are not important to your > efforts or you have higher productivity working with RequestBuilder > and Apache/PHP, then Apache/PHP is a good option. > > My two cents, > > Jason > > > On Sep 13, 3:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: >> i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin >> considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big >> enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side >> request handler >> >> i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per >> second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be >> much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it >> out >> On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: >> >> > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: >> >> > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server >> > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) >> >> > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- >> > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
As Thomas Boyer said, there is no way to answer the question of which is better performance wise. Assuming serialization technologies are equivalent for both performance and message size, all other performance costs (e.g., latency, throughput) depend on the server environment, including the hardware, software, and application code. Likewise, pure request handling performance comes from a combination of the performance costs. To me, the benefit to GWT RPC is the abstraction provided. Objects in the GWT client and server code are the same types, providing some productivity benefits when coding since data transfer objects are not required. If these productivity benefits are not important to your efforts or you have higher productivity working with RequestBuilder and Apache/PHP, then Apache/PHP is a good option. My two cents, Jason On Sep 13, 3:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > request handler > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > out > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Could you show the code that you used to test this with? On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM, John Ivens wrote: > Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high > data rates? > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki wrote: > >> >> Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing >> whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server >> (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each >> with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds >> for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From >> 10 to 100 000 objects). >> I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. >> >> lenght: | 10100 10001 10 >> -- >> Fire Fox | 1830 120 1200error >> Chrome |1014 68 900 24000 >> IE| 1340 230 330015 >> Opera | 3247 130 130027700 >> "hosted" | 340250025000 249000 3270898 >> Netscape|20 47 220 2800error >> Safari | 10 19 70 1300error >> >> ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. >> >> On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: >> > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin >> > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big >> > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side >> > request handler >> > >> > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per >> > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be >> > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it >> > out >> > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: >> > >> > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server >> > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) >> > >> > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using >> GWT- >> > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. >> >> >> >> > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Hey, this is scary... Firefox, Netscape and Safari all error out at high data rates? On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:03 AM, lord.luki wrote: > > Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing > whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server > (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each > with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds > for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From > 10 to 100 000 objects). > I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. > > lenght: | 10100 10001 10 > -- > Fire Fox | 1830 120 1200error > Chrome |1014 68 900 24000 > IE| 1340 230 330015 > Opera | 3247 130 130027700 > "hosted" | 340250025000 249000 3270898 > Netscape|20 47 220 2800error > Safari | 10 19 70 1300error > > ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. > > On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > > request handler > > > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > > out > > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
Hi, maybe it wont be helpfull, but there si some response time testing whitch i did. I was testing gwt-rpc from client to gwt embedet server (Jetty). I was sending pojo object which contained 10 strings each with average length 10 chars. In table below is time in miliseconds for difrent lengths of arraylist containing this pojo objects. (From 10 to 100 000 objects). I also had to add -Xmx512M parameter for last column. lenght: | 10100 10001 10 -- Fire Fox | 1830 120 1200error Chrome |1014 68 900 24000 IE| 1340 230 330015 Opera | 3247 130 130027700 "hosted" | 340250025000 249000 3270898 Netscape|20 47 220 2800error Safari | 10 19 70 1300error ps: yes it is 54 minutes for hosted mode :-D. On Sep 13, 10:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > request handler > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > out > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
In my open source application gwt-commerce http://code.google.com/p/gwt-commerce/ I am using RequestBuilder and sending compressed JSON back from the server. My server is Apache/PHP and I find the low volume performance to be quite good for the limited testing that I've done. I would love to have the time to rebuild the back-end as Java and then do some load testing in the Google App Engine environment and see if the "cloud" computing they've put in place really scales. I originally choose this approach for a couple of reasons. 1. I could run my new front-end next to my old front-end (osCommerce). 2. I believe I can economically scale Apache/PHP using shared hosting services like Go Daddy. I think the real issue here is not low volume performance or the transport medium (RPC or compressed JSON), but performance of the server under load and amount of hardware or "cloud" that is eaten up getting acceptable performance at projected maximum load. I work in a Java house during the day and I have found that JEE (at least J2EE 1.4) is a bit of a resource hog. I think one of the fundamental advantages of an Apache/PHP architecture is that if written correctly each Request/Response cycle is completely independent, therefore scaling is linear. Of course, the elves are improving JEE everyday, so my issues with JEE may be obsolete. Regards, Bob On Sep 13, 4:37 pm, ben fenster wrote: > i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin > considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big > enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side > request handler > > i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per > second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be > much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it > out > On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
i know that but i just wanted to know if the performence margin considering having efficient serialization algoritem could be big enough too be worth the invesment in developing such php server side request handler i also wanted to know about shear power of request handling per second ? , i belive that php combined with apache would prove too be much stronger but i would like too hear from someone that checked it out On Sep 13, 4:16 am, Thomas Broyer wrote: > On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > > > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) > > It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- > RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: rpc vs RequestBuilder
On 13 sep, 07:50, ben fenster wrote: > have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server > performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) It would all depend on your serialization algorithm when not using GWT- RPC; so there's no real answer to your question. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
rpc vs RequestBuilder
have anyone checked what is the better way to comunicate with server performence wize rpc or RequestBuilder(using php) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
