Hello,
Before I tested the nice time/space FI compression I wanted to make sure
that normal non-FI clients would still perform well. In summary I found
that the FI stax implementation for non-FI clients was about 1.85x
slower than woodstox and about 1.4x slower than the RI.
I tested the 3 implementations using XFire and XmlBeans using a
document/wrapped service with a small XmlBean argument.
I loop through the remote method 50 times and print how long that took
20 times. I did the test 3 times for each stax implementation to allow
hotspot some time to do its stuff (at least on the server side).
The tiny SOAP envelope is:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<soapenv:Envelope
xmlns:soapenv="
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
xmlns:xsd="
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xsi="
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<soapenv:Body>
<test xmlns="
http://DefaultNamespace">
<ns1:year
xmlns:ns1="
http://webservices.optimalpayments.com/xact">0</ns1:year>
</test>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
The response was even smaller as the XmlBean return object/document was
empty.
3. Using Sun's Fast Infoset:
(slowest of all when not using FI)
testserver:
[testng] setUp() complete.
[testng] setUp() complete.
[testng] loops:50, in ms:555
[testng] loops:50, in ms:462
[testng] loops:50, in ms:443
[testng] loops:50, in ms:445
[testng] loops:50, in ms:444
[testng] loops:50, in ms:406
[testng] loops:50, in ms:381
[testng] loops:50, in ms:427
[testng] loops:50, in ms:376
[testng] loops:50, in ms:414
[testng] loops:50, in ms:371
[testng] loops:50, in ms:377
[testng] loops:50, in ms:375
[testng] loops:50, in ms:376
[testng] loops:50, in ms:473
[testng] loops:50, in ms:369
[testng] loops:50, in ms:365
[testng] loops:50, in ms:368
[testng] loops:50, in ms:375
[testng] loops:50, in ms:370
1. Using woodstox:
testserver:
[testng] setUp() complete.
[testng] setUp() complete.
[testng] loops:50, in ms:370
[testng] loops:50, in ms:317
[testng] loops:50, in ms:279
[testng] loops:50, in ms:242
[testng] loops:50, in ms:244
[testng] loops:50, in ms:229
[testng] loops:50, in ms:215
[testng] loops:50, in ms:254
[testng] loops:50, in ms:203
[testng] loops:50, in ms:239
[testng] loops:50, in ms:201
[testng] loops:50, in ms:201
[testng] loops:50, in ms:199
[testng] loops:50, in ms:203
[testng] loops:50, in ms:309
[testng] loops:50, in ms:198
[testng] loops:50, in ms:192
[testng] loops:50, in ms:195
[testng] loops:50, in ms:196
[testng] loops:50, in ms:193
Notice the system stabilizes around 370ms for FI and 200ms for woodstox?
I'm using FastInfosetPackage_dist_1.0.1.
I'm curious why the performance is so slow for FI and if there are any
options I can use to speed it up.
Thanks for any comments.
Cheers.
--
Free replacement for Exchange and Outlook (Contacts and Calendar)
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
WAP: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/WAPToday?id=4000&tz=EST
WebDAV: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/webDAVDir/4000.ics
VFREEBUSY: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/freebusy/4000.ifb