Are you using client or server side state saving? Using the latter will cut response times in half.
Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Dhananjay Prasanna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:40 AM >To: 'MyFaces Discussion' >Subject: RE: JSF Performance Problems > > >I think the point is that the median time keeps rising. Whereas in JSP >it doesn't, signifying some kind of leak in myfaces or the use of it... > >On a pure performance level I'd love to see how JSF stacks against >Tapestry which takes a pooled-backing bean approach. I am convinced that >creating and destroying hundreds (possibly thousands) of request-scoped >backing beans every second WILL cause JSF scaling problems despite what >craig has said in the past regarding bb's intention of being lightweight >(the problem is, in a practical environment it is often hard to avoid >heavyweight/work-heavy controllers--especially if they are EJB backed). > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Matthias Wessendorf >Sent: Monday, 10 July 2006 4:17 AM >To: MyFaces Discussion >Subject: Re: JSF Performance Problems > >Faclets gives you +10 -> 15% more > >On 7/9/06, Yee CN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Is the result with Myfaces/JSP? Can somebody provide performance >comparison >> with Myfaces/Facelets? >> >> >> >> JSF is still a new technology, and there are still plenty of rooms for >> improvements. Furthermore the performance differential won't be as >drastic >> once we factor in business logic, persistence, AJAX etc. >> >> >> >> IMHO reduce development time is still the most important factor to >consider. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Yee >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> From: jfaronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:11 AM >> >> To: users@myfaces.apache.org >> Subject: JSF Performance Problems >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I grabbed the attachments from the original performance bug >> https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3 >> and ran some JMeter tests against the "JSP only" and the JSF versions. >The >> pages are really simple, the JSP version outputs a page which is >visually >> identical to the JSF page. The table in question had 10 columns and 50 >- 200 >> rows. Not a huge amount of data. I used MyFaces 1.1.3 as the JSF >> implementation and ran the test in JBoss 4.0.4 GA running on JDK >1.4.2. >> Here's the results: >> >> Table Rows Average [ms] Median [ms] Hits / Min >Samples >> JSF Testcase 50 36 30 1300 >5007 >> JSP Testcase 50 14 10 4030 >5001 >> JSF Testcase 100 56 60 1050 >5001 >> JSP Testcase 100 21 20 2700 >5001 >> JSF Testcase 200 100 100 590 >5001 >> JSP Testcase 200 26 30 2170 >5001 >> >> >> This data confirms the discussion in the sun forum. The JSF version >started >> out nearly three times slower than the JSP page. The relative >performance of >> the JSF version degraded to nearly four times slower as table rows >were >> added. So if you are thinking about adopting JSF you should be aware >of the >> performance hit and make sure that you can architect around the >problem or >> get the performance benchmarks adjusted. Perceived performance is >important >> in real life projects so it's more than a theoretical problem. I'd >also like >> to know if anybody has ideas or code samples that make JSF perform >better? >> ________________________________ >> >> >> View this message in context: JSF Performance Problems >> Sent from the MyFaces - Users forum at Nabble.com. >> > > >-- >Matthias Wessendorf > >futher stuff: >blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > >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. >
