Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Yeah right. Dennis can you add some content from the BOF to the wiki ? Thanks, Matt On 6/28/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey Jesse, Catalin found it to reduce response time by 10%, Adam found it to be 15%. Dennis Byrne >-Original Message- >From: Jesse Alexander \(KSFD 121\) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:11 PM >To: 'MyFaces Discussion' >Subject: RE: [OT] JSF and JVM performance > >Has someone already compared JSF with JSP and with facelets? > >I'm wondering whether facelets will reduce the repsonse times. > >regards >Alexander > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:40 PM >> To: MyFaces Discussion >> Cc: Gerald Müllan; Martin Marinschek >> Subject: Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance >> >> Gerald did some performance test's for Martin's JavaOne BOF. Maybe >> they bring that content to the wiki page ? >> >> >> -Matthias >> > -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Hey Jesse, Catalin found it to reduce response time by 10%, Adam found it to be 15%. Dennis Byrne >-Original Message- >From: Jesse Alexander \(KSFD 121\) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:11 PM >To: 'MyFaces Discussion' >Subject: RE: [OT] JSF and JVM performance > >Has someone already compared JSF with JSP and with facelets? > >I'm wondering whether facelets will reduce the repsonse times. > >regards >Alexander > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:40 PM >> To: MyFaces Discussion >> Cc: Gerald Müllan; Martin Marinschek >> Subject: Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance >> >> Gerald did some performance test's for Martin's JavaOne BOF. Maybe >> they bring that content to the wiki page ? >> >> >> -Matthias >> >
RE: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Has someone already compared JSF with JSP and with facelets? I'm wondering whether facelets will reduce the repsonse times. regards Alexander > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:40 PM > To: MyFaces Discussion > Cc: Gerald Müllan; Martin Marinschek > Subject: Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance > > Gerald did some performance test's for Martin's JavaOne BOF. Maybe > they bring that content to the wiki page ? > > > -Matthias >
Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Gerald did some performance test's for Martin's JavaOne BOF. Maybe they bring that content to the wiki page ? -Matthias
Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Indeed, these results are much closer to what I would have expected. And I also agree that you should try JRockit as it is often faster than Sun's (and quite stable as well).-- Jess On 6/26/06, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well in my initial tests, I did a smaller query first to warm things up.But it was really only a quick run of each, as I had other things to do.Unfortunately, this real-world tests may have led me to an erroroneous conclusion. My further investigations today still did not have thecontrols and repetition for definitive results, but they are at least alittle better.What I did for each was start JBoss, run the test twice, log off and wait 5 minutes, test twice... repeat...I did have a couple of poor runs at the beginning, but I now believethis to be an OS issue(memory paging?), rather than a VM issue (itoccured this time on the client VM). Here's some of my runs:(results in seconds)Client VM Server VM(Load)Run125 22Run217 15(Pause)Run343 18Run425 13 (Pause)Run518 13Run619 18Median 20 17Average 24.516.5The server definately takes longer to display the first JSP page (nottimed), but it doesn't show any disadvantage in the first search. Seems my original conclusions were misleading, and the server VM may be a bitfaster. > Also have you tried running it on the Jrockit JVM? It consistently > outscores sunVMs on appserver profiles. BEA JRockit? Hmm that would be interesting to compare, but I highlydoubt I could convince my boss to use a JVM other than Sun's! ;)As it stands, performance seems much more acceptable than thatoff-the-cuff test indicated. Thanks for your responses,Jeff BischoffKenneth L Kurz & Assoc, Inc.Dhananjay Prasanna wrote:>>>>> >> *From:* Jesse Sightler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> *Sent:* Saturday, 24 June 2006 11:36 AM> *To:* MyFaces Discussion> *Subject:* Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance >>>> How many times did you run your performance test? Were you timing the> first run, or timing some runs after giving it some stress and then a> quick breather? :)>> >> On 6/23/06, *Jeff Bischoff* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>> I have noticed that Myfaces seems to perform better while running on the > Hotspot Client (default) jvm, rather than the Hotspot Server jvm. Have> any of you noticed this too?>> I would be very interested in this test too, as Jess says more detailed> metrics would really help. >> Also have you tried running it on the Jrockit JVM? It consistently> outscores sunVMs on appserver profiles.>>> Jeff Bischoff> Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc>> >> This correspondence is for the named persons only.> It may contain confidential or privileged information or both.> No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. > If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your> system immediately and notify the sender.> You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence,> if you are not the intended recipient. > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual> sender except where the sender expressly,> and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department> of Emergency Services, Queensland. >
Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
Well in my initial tests, I did a smaller query first to warm things up. But it was really only a quick run of each, as I had other things to do. Unfortunately, this real-world tests may have led me to an erroroneous conclusion. My further investigations today still did not have the controls and repetition for definitive results, but they are at least a little better. What I did for each was start JBoss, run the test twice, log off and wait 5 minutes, test twice... repeat... I did have a couple of poor runs at the beginning, but I now believe this to be an OS issue(memory paging?), rather than a VM issue (it occured this time on the client VM). Here's some of my runs: (results in seconds) Client VM Server VM (Load) Run125 22 Run217 15 (Pause) Run343 18 Run425 13 (Pause) Run518 13 Run619 18 Median 20 17 Average 24.516.5 The server definately takes longer to display the first JSP page (not timed), but it doesn't show any disadvantage in the first search. Seems my original conclusions were misleading, and the server VM may be a bit faster. > Also have you tried running it on the Jrockit JVM? It consistently > outscores sunVMs on appserver profiles. BEA JRockit? Hmm that would be interesting to compare, but I highly doubt I could convince my boss to use a JVM other than Sun's! ;) As it stands, performance seems much more acceptable than that off-the-cuff test indicated. Thanks for your responses, Jeff Bischoff Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc, Inc. Dhananjay Prasanna wrote: *From:* Jesse Sightler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Saturday, 24 June 2006 11:36 AM *To:* MyFaces Discussion *Subject:* Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance How many times did you run your performance test? Were you timing the first run, or timing some runs after giving it some stress and then a quick breather? :) On 6/23/06, *Jeff Bischoff* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: I have noticed that Myfaces seems to perform better while running on the Hotspot Client (default) jvm, rather than the Hotspot Server jvm. Have any of you noticed this too? I would be very interested in this test too, as Jess says more detailed metrics would really help. Also have you tried running it on the Jrockit JVM? It consistently outscores sunVMs on appserver profiles. Jeff Bischoff Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.
RE: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
From: Jesse Sightler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 11:36 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance How many times did you run your performance test? Were you timing the first run, or timing some runs after giving it some stress and then a quick breather? :) On 6/23/06, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have noticed that Myfaces seems to perform better while running on the Hotspot Client (default) jvm, rather than the Hotspot Server jvm. Have any of you noticed this too? I would be very interested in this test too, as Jess says more detailed metrics would really help. Also have you tried running it on the Jrockit JVM? It consistently outscores sunVMs on appserver profiles. Jeff Bischoff Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.
Re: [OT] JSF and JVM performance
How many times did you run your performance test? Were you timing the first run, or timing some runs after giving it some stress and then a quick breather? :)If you were timing the first run, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the -server mode were slower. Thanks,JessOn 6/23/06, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have noticed that Myfaces seems to perform better while running on the Hotspot Client (default) jvm, rather than the Hotspot Server jvm. Haveany of you noticed this too?For example, I tested by having my application build a t:dataTable of over 5000 rows. I used JBoss 4.0.4 and ran with and without the -serverjvm option. Memory usage was consistent between the runs, but executiontime was vastly different.Using the default client jvm, my dataTable displayed in 28 seconds. Using the server jvm, my dataTable displayed in 83 seconds.This seems a little counterintuitive to me, considering that thisclearly is a "server" type process. Perhaps it is because so many objects are being created, and the client vm allocates memory andinitializes faster.Has anyone found a good reason to use the -server option, when running aJSF application?Regards,Jeff Bischoff Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc
[OT] JSF and JVM performance
I have noticed that Myfaces seems to perform better while running on the Hotspot Client (default) jvm, rather than the Hotspot Server jvm. Have any of you noticed this too? For example, I tested by having my application build a t:dataTable of over 5000 rows. I used JBoss 4.0.4 and ran with and without the -server jvm option. Memory usage was consistent between the runs, but execution time was vastly different. Using the default client jvm, my dataTable displayed in 28 seconds. Using the server jvm, my dataTable displayed in 83 seconds. This seems a little counterintuitive to me, considering that this clearly is a "server" type process. Perhaps it is because so many objects are being created, and the client vm allocates memory and initializes faster. Has anyone found a good reason to use the -server option, when running a JSF application? Regards, Jeff Bischoff Kenneth L Kurz & Assoc
