mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert.j.gr...@jpmorgan.com
Subject Re: MINA with Mustang
Date Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:23:26 GMT

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I did also create a version of SocketIoProcessor
for use with aio4j. However it proved to be unreliable under linux (at
least RHEL 4) although it was ok on windows. AIO will be part of Java 7
apparently so I will hopefully revisit it when that is available in early
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sun are currently trying to reproduce
my test environment in their lab, so I should stress that this is not a
validated bug or problem in Mustang at this stage. I will keep this mailing
list updated with progress on this issue - it could be some obscure characteristic
of my test.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I am looking forward to BEA's version
of Java 6 though! In other testing we have done, we found that Mustang
did show significant improvements in the cost of acquiring locks - i.e.
sychronized blocks etc - presumably due to the escape analysis and other
optimisations that are done in that area.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Robert</font>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>&quot;Vinod Panicker&quot;
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">18/04/2006 14:07</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to mina-dev</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;mina-dev@directory.apache.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Re: MINA with Mustang</font></table>
<br><font size=2><tt>Hi,<br>
Thanks for the response. &nbsp;This is eye-opening info...<br>
Have you ever tried IBM's aio4j?<br>
Anyways... I hope sun manages to get the performance atleast up to<br>
jrockit standards when Mustang goes final.<br>
On 4/18/06, robert.j.greig@jpmorgan.com &lt;robert.j.greig@jpmorgan.com&gt;
&gt; Yes, we have been using Mustang betas for quite some time with our
&gt; Our results show that, on our HP DL 585 hardware (4 dual core opterons)
BEA JRockit is still faster in terms of throughput than the Sun JVM. Most
interestingly, the BEA JVM is significantly faster when Gb ethernet is
connecting the clients and servers. We are running RHEL 4.<br>
&gt; I am working with Sun at the moment to analyse our performance results
to see if we can figure out why we see such a difference between the JVMs
particularly when using Gb ethernet.<br>
&gt; Our benchmarks involve sending payloads of around 400 bytes from clients
to server. We have tested with up to 150 clients running concurrently.<br>
&gt; Robert<br>
&gt; &quot;Vinod Panicker&quot; &lt;vinod.p@gmail.com&gt;<br>
&gt; 18/04/2006 11:32<br>
&gt; Please respond to mina-dev<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc:<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
with Mustang<br>
&gt; Hi,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Has anyone given MINA a try with the new JDK 1.6 beta?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;It's got the epoll based selector implementation and should
be much<br>
&gt; &nbsp;more efficient in managing more number of concurrent connections.
&gt; &nbsp;usage with idle connections should ideally drop drastically.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;If anyone's got the time and hardware, some benchmarks would
be really<br>
&gt; &nbsp;welcome :)<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Regards,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Vinod.<br>
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended<br>
as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial<br>
instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices,<br>
data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and<br>
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein <br>
do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co., its subsidiaries <br>
and affiliates.

View raw message