mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Mina throughput
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:35:01 GMT
Hi guys,

when guessing relative performances of Java/C++ on a network
environment, please keep in mind that data processing will be
processed orders or magnitude faster than simple network handling by
the underlying layer. Thinking that Java is slower than C++ to handle
messages on a network based application because it does not have
pointers is out of base.

FYI, I have tested our LDAP server on my laptop, sending Search
requests through MINA (Apache Directory Server is based on MINA, 1.0.3
version), and I got something like 5000 req/s (a request is around
1kb), assuming that almost all the time is spent internally to the
server itself, not in the MINA layer. Btw, LDAP messages are binary,
but that does not mean it's easier to decode them in C/C++ than in
Java (I would say that the complexity is exactly the same for both

I don't want to start a flame war, but I encourage anyone who want to
compare Java and C++ to compare things that are comparable, and not
blind guess what can be slow or fast in both languages.

My 2cts

On 8/11/07, mat <forum.maillist@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the windows IOCP server is written in C++ and it is running on a pc
> server. I believe the reasons why Java can't reach that performance
> sometimes due to lack of structure(pointer). I find it is really cumbersome
> job to decode a binary message in Java. I don't know if you guys have better
> solution to decode the binary format and manipulate the each field in the
> binary message.
> On 8/11/07, Michael Grundvig <mike@electrotank.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have the exact numbers but I know on a big Linux box (8
> > processors,
> > 8 gb ram) with a switched gigabit backbone we have seen greater then
> > 45,000 - 50,000 messages per second sustained. Ultimately the problem
> > becomes a matter of garbage collector churn rather then IO overhead. On
> > Windows machines we could get only to a fraction of that. We believe the
> > underlying I/O differences between Windows and *nix become really obvious
> > when you get to higher message counts.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mat" <forum.maillist@gmail.com>
> > To: "dev" <dev@mina.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:24 AM
> > Subject: Mina throughput
> >
> >
> > > Does anyone have the throughput test by raw socket communication
> > > (keep-alive
> > > mode)? My colleague wrote a windows IOCP server whose throughput could
> > > reach
> > > 1.8m/sec. (5000message/sec in intranet).
> > >
> >
> >

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message