myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard W. Smith, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Questions about JSFCentral - Understanding JSF 2.0 Performance - Part 3
Date Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:56:08 GMT
Okay/understood, thanks Leonardo. :)

>> The most interesting fact is the decrease in the throughput for Spring

I found that interesting too.

>> If you think that using Spring MVC-JSP will give you a better
performance, think twice, because MyFaces with a CDI implementation like
OpenWebbeans will do a better job.

And I was glad to see this mentioned... I'm definitely using all of the
above (MyFaces Core + OpenWebBeans + CDI via TomEE 1.6.0 snapshot). :)

I think I have been using MyFaces Core ever since August or September 2012,
and I have been very satisfied with the performance, and GC does not seem
to be an issue in/with my app as my app has been running perfectly at -Xms1250m
-Xmx1250m -server. Honestly, I don't ever remember experiencing an
OutOfMemory issue with my app. :)

>> Servlet-JSP uses the least possible amount of memory, but the surprising
part is MyFaces uses 32% less memory than Spring MVC-JSP, and in the best
case the view pool uses 46% less memory.  That means in some cases under
high load and low memory, MyFaces will probably perform better than Spring
MVC-JSP due to the garbage collector effect.

Very interesting. Prior to reading this blog of yours, I was not aware of
how well Servlet-JSP performs compared to JSF, and now I'm glad to see
Spring MVC JSP included in the comparisons as well.

I will be honest with you, when I look at Instances in jvisualvm, I see
more MyFaces Core instances than instances of my classes, and the MyFaces
Core instances seem to take up more memory than instances of my classes.

>>  This feature is ideal for viewing the session sizeā€”just look for
org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSession retained size

While reading, I was just about to ask about this, and now I know. Since
I'm not using Yourkit, I hope I can see the session size in jvisualvm (or
Netbeans profiler).

Anyway, very nice-n-informative blog/post/article. Thank you!

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Leonardo Uribe <> wrote:

> Hi Howard
> JSF 2.1 is java 1.6 compatible. In this case, an improvement in the JVM
> will affect all frameworks in the same way, so a change using java 7 or 8
> will not affect the relative differences.
> Regards,
> Leonardo.
> On Jul 17, 2013 1:32 PM, "Howard W. Smith, Jr." <>
> wrote:
> > First of all, kudos for the following blog/post:
> >
> > JSFCentral - Understanding JSF 2.0 Performance - Part 3[1]
> >
> > I started reading this, and not done yet.
> >
> > >> Instead, it's more interesting to check the ability of a web framework
> > to deal with effects like concurrency and get an idea of the overhead
> > involved in using a web framework against the fastest possible solution
> in
> > Java.
> >
> > So far, I'm seeing, possibly, latest releases of open source software
> used
> > in the test...except for the JDK. Does 'fastest possible solution in
> Java'
> > = JDK6.0.30?
> >
> > JDK7 has been available for quite some time and I know I'm using JDK7
> > (latest version, always), and JDK8 is out there and around the corner.
> >
> > Is there any reason why Java = JDK6.0.30 in the tests?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message