myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Web Framework Performance Comparision
Date Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:13:58 GMT
Hi, I got an answer from one of the guys over twitter.
They were using MyFaces 2.1.1, I am trying to find out if they used
Development stage or Production. I also gave him the hint to try
Myfaces 2.1.4-Snapshot.

It might be interesting to see their tests revisited with 2.1.4.


Werner


Am 10/14/11 11:40 AM, schrieb Mark Struberg:
> I got to similar numbers WHEN I was in ProjectStaged.Development only. In this case we
have our DebugPhaseListener running and lots of other stuff as well.
>
> Once I benched with PS.Production, the numbers were pretty well.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Werner Punz<werner.punz@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: Web Framework Performance Comparision
>>
>> Yes from what i gather one of the issues they had in the slides was the
>> overall page size. The question there is more along the lines what did
>> they count, just the rendered code, or also the includes.
>>
>> I can help to reduce the size on the JSF.js side. We have some code
>> which is not directly active for JSF 2.1 and will very likely become
>> part of jsf 2.2 or 2.3. it can be used today already by adding config
>> params, Also we have some internationalization
>> of the internal error messages.
>>
>> This code could be externalized into an addition js file for people who
>> need it. I think we might save around 20Kbytes that way.
>>
>> I personally did not think that it was necessary due to the fact that
>> the js files usually are gzipped while still bigger than mojarra we
>> after gzipping the file talk about sizes of 10-30k etc...
>>
>> In the end externalizing that code would have caused more burden on the
>> users than it would have helped. But given that mojarra just implements
>> the raw api and nothing else and does not take some corner conditions
>> into consideration and has no browser optimizations they are
>> significantly smaller in their jsf.js file and if our size is a problem
>> we can reduce it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> Am 10/13/11 11:07 PM, schrieb Leonardo Uribe:
>>>   Hi
>>>
>>>   I believe probably we already did that. The biggest bottleneck we had
>>>   was that renderers did many calls to map.get(). Mojarra had an
>>>   optimization in this part, but MyFaces do not until 2.0.9/2.1.3, so I
>>>   suppose with the latest code we have better numbers.
>>>
>>>   regards,
>>>
>>>   Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>>   2011/10/13 Werner Punz<werner.punz@gmail.com>:
>>>>   I would be interested as well, especially regarding their test setup,
>> we
>>>>   basically doubled for instance our ajax performance between 2.0.4 and
>> the
>>>>   current state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>>   So it might be interesting to see what testsetup they were using.
>>>>    From a pure memory point of view we of course have a higher load on
>> the
>>>>   browser because our ajax implementation deals with things mojarra does
>> not
>>>>   and also has an oo layer underneath. But I added browser specific
>>>>   optimisations so on modern browsers we should be slightly faster than
>>>>   mojarra in raw ajax processing (at least my personal tests resembled
>> that
>>>>   when I did the profiling), while mojarra is sligtly ahead on Firefox
>> 3.5 and
>>>>   IE6 and 7.
>>>>
>>>>   Just giving the numbers unfortunately does not help to see where their
>>>>   bottleneck was they discovered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Werner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Am 10/13/11 10:13 PM, schrieb Andy Schwartz:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Gang -
>>>>>
>>>>>   I recently got wind of the following web framework performance talk
>>>>>   that was presented at JavaOne:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://oracleus.wingateweb.com/published/oracleus2011/sessions/24122/S24122_234496.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>   I did not attend, but based on the slides it looks like the
>> presenters
>>>>>   did an very thorough/systematic job of evaluating
>>>>>   performance/scalability for a handful of web frameworks, including
>>>>>   JSF.  (I also have to say that they slides are simply beautiful -
>>>>>   wow!)
>>>>>
>>>>>   I wanted to call attention to this talk because I am concerned
>> about
>>>>>   one aspect of the results.  Looking at slide #73, it seems that the
>>>>>   presenters are seeing significant overhead in the MyFaces test runs
>>>>>   (ie. vs. equivalent runs in Mojarra).  I don't have any details
>> other
>>>>>   than the $ numbers included in the slides, but seems quite possible
>>>>>   that there is some low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked (or
>>>>>   optimized).
>>>>>
>>>>>   Is anyone acquainted with the presenters?  Perhaps it would be
>>>>>   worthwhile to contact them to see whether it would be possible to
>> take
>>>>>   a closer look at the test case?
>>>>>
>>>>>   Andy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>



Mime
View raw message