Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-phoenix-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 93601 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 15:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 15:34:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 21366 invoked by uid 97); 27 Sep 2002 15:30:15 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 21227 invoked by uid 97); 27 Sep 2002 15:30:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 21098 invoked by uid 98); 27 Sep 2002 15:30:12 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3D9478F4.9020609@denic.de> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:27:48 +0200 From: Ulrich Mayring Organization: DENIC eG User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon-Phoenix Developers List Subject: Re: Jo! integration questions References: <7B8D8ABA-D227-11D6-B955-000393B61B56@apache.org> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 27.09.2002 17:29:14, Serialize by Router on notes/Denic(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 27.09.2002 17:29:15, Serialize complete at 27.09.2002 17:29:15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Peter Royal wrote: > On Friday, September 27, 2002, at 10:26 AM, Ulrich Mayring wrote: > > That's what we do over here, except we do have that costly TCP > connection. A Cocoon2-based webapp is running inside of Catalina and > communicates via AltRMI to a .sar-app in phoenix on the same host. The > Java RMI -> AltRMI switch saved a couple hundred ms per request (mainly > due to dropping one of the RMI calls, as it was trivial to embed > user-auth information into the AltRMI request). > > Thats k. The numbers represent how many null method invocations could be > completed in 10 seconds on paul's machine... > > java RMI (b) performed 4329 calls.. If Java RMI does 4329 calls per 10 seconds, that equals 432.9 per second, which means a single request takes a little more than 2 ms to complete. How could you possibly have saved a couple hundred ms that way? :) > the intra-JVM bits were all 3x as fast, at least, with the slowest being > 12095 calls (an object stream over a pipe). The one you may want to look > at is the 'Direct Marshalled' variant which did 20759 calls (5x as fast > as RMI), which works with the classloader separation. I'd be willing to invest 0.48 ms per request :) Anyway, it's probably got to do with the null method invocation, if we start to push some real data, we will see much different numbers. Your application would be a good example, you probably push some XML-file sized data around, have you made any measurements? cheers, Ulrich -- Ulrich Mayring DENIC eG, Systementwicklung -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: