Hi Bongjae,
thank you very much for the investigations and nice report!
Results look very good.
For sure it would be good to make sure Netty uses something like Grizzly
SameThreadStrategy, so we know we compare apples-to-apples, it would be
also interesting to see results for more simultaneous connections.
Thanks a lot!
WBR,
Alexey.
PS: I made some minor refactoring in the Grizzly thrift code, pls. let
me know if you're fine w/ that.
On 12/05/2011 11:27 AM, Bongjae Chang wrote:
> Added some data in conclusion.
>
> If you have any questions, please let me know!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Bongjae Chang
>
> From: Bongjae Chang <bongjae.chang_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:bongjae.chang_at_gmail.com>>
> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:49:58 +0900
> To: "dev_at_grizzly.java.net <mailto:dev_at_grizzly.java.net>"
> <dev_at_grizzly.java.net <mailto:dev_at_grizzly.java.net>>
> Subject: Grizzly-Thrift benchmark results
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to share results.
> I attached the pdf and test sources.
>
> First, I used Grizzly's LeaderFollower IO Strategy in server side
> because LFIS had a bit performance improvement than Woker Thread IO
> Strategy and Grizzly's Same IO Strategy in only client side.
> But I found that Netty had better performance than Grizzly which used
> WTIS. So I also changed WTIS into Same Thread IO Strategy in server
> side and I found that Grizzly is best.
> It seemed that maybe Netty used the default IO logic like Grizzly's
> STIS when I reviewed the netty sources simply.
>
> In most of cases, Grizzly-thrift server and client modules were best.
> But in small packets, TSocket client had better performances.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Bongjae Chang