Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Caldarale, Charles R
<chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
From: David Kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net]
Subject: Re: Performance with many small requests
Incrementing a counter can't be much of a synchronization bottleneck,
and if I switch to an AtomicInteger, it should be even less of one.
Actually, it won't. There's a slight performance difference between the two mechanisms,
but it's usually in favor of the synchronized increment, not the >AtomicInteger, at
least on my dual-core AMD 64 system running JDK 6u12 in 64-bit server mode on Vista.
The difference is only a few percent, so you should >just code it whichever way you
find more maintainable. (Test program available on request; it would be interesting to
see if the same relationship exists on a >modern Intel chip.)
Hello,
last time I checked (which is a while ago - 2006 and on 1.5) it was
not only processor, but also OS dependent and clearly in favor of
atomics (but it probably depends on the number of concurrent writers
too). If you would share your test code, I would love to test it on
some *nixes and darwins I have here; i'd also volunteer to gather and
publish results from everyone else :-)
I'll second that request!
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
