Salut,
Scott Oaks wrote:
> IBM is apparently talking alot about these appserver results from John
> Campbell, which show SJSAS lagging both jBoss and Geronimo:
>
> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jdcampbell/archive/2008/02/top_java_5_ee_s_1.html
>
> It's a typical simple benchmark, which means that each HTTP connection
> gets a single thing and then returns and never reuses the connection. As
> such, it's not particularly interesting in the real world (or is it?
> maybe I'm wrong about that...), except that we keep getting dinged on
> this -- recall the earlier discussion we had on the mailinator claim
> that traditional I/O was faster than NIO. Faster yes, but only for
> single requests and not nearly as scalable.
>
> On the other hand, I was also doing some work with SunSolve and SJSAS
> 9.0, where they are using the coyote connector, and it prompted me to
> revisit John Campbells benchmark (which I'd previously verified did show
> jBoss beating SJSAS 9.1, at least on Linux). So I re-ran the test with
> 9.1 and the coyote connector (e.g. traditional I/O), and found that the
> coyote connector and glassfish greatly outperformed both jBoss and
> glassfish+grizzly (see attached graph).
>
> Again, it's not the typical use case, but since it keeps cropping up,
> maybe we do need to consider a single-request model in grizzly (that
> uses traditional I/O after all). I had a discussion at a recent
> engineering meeting with some NetBeans guys who are running JSPWiki on
> 9.1 and weren't happy with it's performance vs. tomcat -- and it amounts
> to the same thing for them: they only do a few requests at a time, so
> they don't care about the scalability. [On the other hand, do they also
> really notice the time difference for a single request? I'd think
> not...]
>
> So I'm not sure what the right answer here is (and I'm not going to go
> respond to John Campbell's blog by pointing out how the coyote connector
> does on his test, since in the end that just confuses the issue). But it
> seems like something to think about some more...
There is a big difference with the way Tomcat/Coyote Connector works vs
Grizzly, and that might explain the difference. One way to test it is to
run your test and using Grizzly blocking mode to see how it perform. It
has been a while since we compare blocking with Coyote, but at the time
Grizzly blocking was faster than Coyote....in 2005 :-) I would take a
look first at the result, and then decide if we want to switch to
blocking socket (which is fairly simple to achieve). I would think we
can write a simple algorithm which can turn on non-blocking when we
determine it is now time to scale....
A+
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> -Scott
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net