"ravi_eze" wrote : 
  | hi,
  | 
  | This is w.r.t. 
http://labs.jboss.com/jbossremoting/docs/benchmark/performance_benchmark.html 
where comparision between diffarent protocols is done. The page also gives the 
JUnit code that generated the graphs. we are trying out with 2.5.2. version.
  | 
  | We are evaluating Java RMI and JBoss RMI over socket + Jboss serialization. 
We see that Java RMI with Java serialization is always atleast 20% faster than 
Jboss RMI + socket + Jboss serialization.
  | 
  | i am unable to understand the below from the test cases.
  | 
  | 1. The payload uses byte[1024] empty array always. and the object is never 
serialized.
  | 2. why byte[] as theres not thing there to serialize in it
  | 3. Even on using byte[1024] to be sent across using jboss and java rmi we 
see java rmi is superior on our machines.
  | 
  | If this is the case then how ar the graphs generated? Or am i missing 
something very important. Please help.
  | 
  | -- 
  | ravi 
  | 

Actually, the byte array gets wrapped in some Remoting objects, which do indeed 
get serialized.

By "Java RMI with Java serialization" I assume you mean the  "raw_socket" 
results, or maybe the "raw_rmi" results, and by "Jboss RMI + socket + Jboss 
serialization" I assume you mean "socket transport with jboss serialization".  
Is that right?  If so, then I can't explain why you're seeing results different 
than ours.  Who knows?  Different machines, different jdk's, etc.

By the way, before I released version 2.4.0.GA, I did a lot of testing and 
tuning, and, in the end, the performance of 2.4.0.GA and whatever the latest 
2.2.x release was at the time were very close, within a few percentage points.

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4260914#4260914

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4260914
_______________________________________________
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to