cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <daniel.k...@iona.com>
Subject Re: CXF & Celtix performance test result
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:07:04 GMT

Dan,

I think the first number is the number of client threads running on the client 
machine.   Thus, in the echoString case, we're peaking around 8 client 
threads.   Keep in mind, both client and server are only dual processor 
machines.

Willem: can I ask how the two machines are connected?   I did an ethereal dump 
on the tcp stream and the echoString message involves 1568 bytes in the 
ethernet payloads.  At 2617/sec, that's 4.1MB/sec EACH WAY (if I did my math 
right), plus overhead for the ethernet and tcp headers and such.    That 
would be saturating a 100MB half-duplex link.   I'd like to make sure we 
aren't actually hitting a networking limit or similar.   I don't suppose 
there is anyway to get them connected via gigabit?

Thanks!
Dan





On Saturday September 30 2006 10:25 pm, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> How many client threads are being run here?
> Thanks,
> - Dan
>
> Jiang, Ning (Willem) wrote:
> >I finally realized the mail list had remove my attached file.
> >I had to copy the test result to this mail, sorry for the format.
> >
> >	Basic Type test (Echo String)
> >
> >	Celtix 1.0 	CXF 2.0M1
> >Client 	Through put 	Response Time(ms) Through put 	Response Time (ms)
> >1 	244.26  4.09 	599.09  	1.67
> >2 	387.49 	5.16 	1119.08 	1.79
> >3 	529.71 	5.66 	1541.06 	1.95
> >4 	569.81 	7.02 	1904.97 	2.1
> >5 	685.51 	7.29 	2175.04 	2.3
> >6 	737.4 	8.14 	2377.22 	2.52
> >7 	738.05 	9.48 	2539.41 	2.76
> >8 	732.47 	10.92 	2617.16 	3.06
> >9 	724.99 	12.41 	2572.39 	3.5
> >10 	717.44 	13.94 	2521.87 	3.97
> >
> >
> >	Complex Type test (Echo Struct)
> >
> >	Celtix 1.0 	CXF 2.0M1
> >Client 	Through put 	Response Time(ms) Through put 	Response Time (ms)
> >1 	184.4 	5.42 	359.13  	2.79
> >2 	314.26 	6.36 	660.66  	3.03
> >3 	430.01 	6.98 	885.91  	3.39
> >4 	497.89 	8.03 	1095.78 	3.65
> >5 	571.39 	8.75 	1256.33 	3.98
> >6 	607.29 	9.88 	1401.40 	4.28
> >7 	607.18 	11.53 	1482.88 	4.72
> >8 	632.96 	12.64 	1511.44 	5.29
> >9 	595.55 	15.11 	1513.82 	5.95
> >10 	636.09 	15.72 	1473.38 	6.79
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:	Jiang, Ning (Willem)
> >Sent:	2006-9-30 (星期六) 20:34
> >To:	cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Cc:
> >Subject:	FW: CXF & Celtix performance test result
> >
> >
> >Sorry, I forgot to attache the result html.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:	Jiang, Ning (Willem)
> >Sent:	2006-9-30 (星期六) 5:27
> >To:	cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Cc:
> >Subject:	CXF & Celtix performance test result
> >
> >Hi ,
> >
> >I just finished the CXF performance test base on Dan Kulp's latest
> >performance tuning.
> >Here is the test result, attached as HTML.
> >It is great news that the result shows CXF is 2~3 times fastter than
> > Celtix.
> >
> >The test case is in the trunk/test/performance/.
> >Basic_Type just test echo string for 1K message
> >Complex_Type test  echo struct for about 2K complex type message.
> >
> >Test had been done with  2  DELL Workstation 670 , Linux ES3.0,  2 CPU
> >2.8 GHZ,  memory 2G
> >(one run as server  the  other run as  client)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Willem.

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
daniel.kulp@iona.com

Mime
View raw message