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 Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:48:26 GMT
Ok I got into email contact with one of the guys, first of all
here is a link to the presentation http://bit.ly/nUXMfi
I will watch it in the upcoming days and then nail them
with more questions which very likely arise.
So that we can get final conclusions about eventual hotspots we might have.

Werner


Am 10/14/11 11:13 PM, schrieb Werner Punz:
> 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