Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-struts-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 75908 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2010 00:49:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jan 2010 00:49:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 69321 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2010 00:49:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-struts-user-archive@struts.apache.org Received: (qmail 69276 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2010 00:49:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Struts Users Mailing List" Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" Delivered-To: mailing list user@struts.apache.org Received: (qmail 69266 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2010 00:49:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:49:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of greenemj@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.226 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.226] (HELO mail-bw0-f226.google.com) (209.85.218.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:49:24 +0000 Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so206671bwz.27 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:49:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=6NIXECVQijflAIDiEZQQ5s+p3ADeKeY9RBN1lEq7LnU=; b=YF9SbTwV4thKM8pulEPwMKZyCJ/N90rWZiKbSutTzvXrfuM2Z+82PyiDdYsWqcdP5w VOy3p5Ki9yMMUUEYDGTcHg3fz3fhJ+hwMgejjX7L+V1LOXlRfjcjbiMLEDutNaXC4NI0 y1FYy39UCz3q9pRMxEOc+MmdC5Wq37PBRj3is= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=kQiuUVo8dc/9H0hKmhhrqXG3BSHgVCj58Lu3nEiS9bzbHY2aA16KVaIov650y2iIrG E7slhrj2dlnb5A6DameB2c6ruzbSAKIMcIjQV8Yzp/lJW0iI0QBTEc7phTPNhT02lsFW z/YnHtgpvB+zluvEnxqFv+67rc5spDFxHRXq4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.49.82 with SMTP id u18mr895984bkf.47.1263516543150; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:49:03 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Greene Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:48:43 -0500 Message-ID: <41fe9a101001141648o5a7eee93j8c297e6891f4ec4e@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Struts 2 Tags / Freemarker performance To: Struts Users Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325557522b8ec81047d295ebc --000325557522b8ec81047d295ebc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've been evaluating struts 2.1.8.1 and have found some troubling performance bottlenecks relating to the struts tag and freemarker. I have a JSP that has 7 struts2 tags in it. (A simple signup form) I noticed in my load testing that the throughput of this page was 4-5 times slower under load (100 concurrent threads) than a JSP page with no struts2 tags on it. I cracked open my profiler and noticed the majority of the time spent in a page request was within freemarker. I uploaded a screen shot from my profiler here : http://tinypic.com/r/20johet/6 . I've seen a lot of discussion on the mailing lists about performance related issues and the recommendations that came along with them to address it. I believe I've done everything I can to tune this simple page. I would appreciate any feedback if there is something I am missing. Or is this a known issue? struts.xml: dojo\..* cancel,delete,list input,back,cancel,browse account.create JSP Page (snippet):

--000325557522b8ec81047d295ebc--