Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 13220 invoked from network); 12 May 2009 20:04:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 May 2009 20:04:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 13015 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2009 20:04:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 12948 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2009 20:04:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 12934 invoked by uid 99); 12 May 2009 20:04:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2009 20:04:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [76.96.62.16] (HELO QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.62.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2009 20:04:10 +0000 Received: from OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qZtU1b0030vyq2s51k3pdk; Tue, 12 May 2009 20:03:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.5.123] ([70.90.82.201]) by OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qk3n1b0064Ld74e3Rk3oMl; Tue, 12 May 2009 20:03:49 +0000 Message-Id: <8242BA5A-0293-4115-A05E-622720BE91D9@christopherschultz.net> From: Christopher Schultz To: Tomcat Users List In-Reply-To: <0AAE5AB84B013E45A7B61CB66943C17228D90C4715@USEA-EXCH7.na.uis.unisys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (5H11) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 5H11) Subject: Re: Performance with many small requests Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:03:43 -0400 References: <4A034AFB.7070009@verizon.net> <4A036927.1000604@verizon.net><4A0890BB.5090104@christophersch ultz.net> <4A08B94E.1030307@verizon.net><0AAE5AB84B013E45A7B61CB66943C17228 D87E86C3@USEA-EXCH7.na.uis.unisys.com><327858f40905112305w49591a1fmdbcef3d5 7a551f81@mail.gmail.com><0AAE5AB84B013E45A7B61CB66943C17228D87E8EE0@USEA-EXCH7.na.uis.unisys.com> <4A099DD4.3050305@verizon.net> <0AAE5AB84B013E45A7B61CB66943C17228D90C4715@USEA-EXCH7.na.uis.unisys.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On May 12, 2009, at 13:09, "Caldarale, Charles R" wrote: >> From: David kerber [mailto:dckerber@verizon.net] >> Subject: Re: Performance with many small requests >> >> From these tests, it looks like, under windows XP and java 1.5 >> any way, that atomics are always faster > > Try it under 1.6; Sun made major improvements to synchronization > handling between 1.5 and 1.6. When I reran my tests on 1.5 (which I > don't use these days), I got numbers similar to yours. 1.6 is much, > much faster. This reminds me of perfomance "optimizations" that people used to make in their Java code such as converting String objects to byte arrays to do operations on them because "everyone knew" that it was faster. Then, Sun came along and optimized the String API implementation, causing all those "optimizations" to then be slower than the straightforward implementatios of string ops. That "optimized" code also has the added advantage of being confusing to read. I agree with Chuck's assertion that understandability ought to be a more important goal than maximum possible performance. -chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org