I've done extensive ( no, not extensive, really, really, extensive, worthy of a space research project extensive ) testing of async IO performance vs. threaded server performance. The conclusion is that unless you have over 10,000 active, users, async IO is about 1/2 the performance of the usual thread-per-connection performance. By active users I mean connections that are actually putting out IO all the time, as opposed to just idle sitting connections.
If you really, really, do have that many uses ( amazon.com type shop ) your bottleneck won't be at the web server level anyway, so the right thing to do is to load balance and scale out. Async IO won't solve any of these problems and will just introduce bugs and complexity and actually degrade performance by significant margin. On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:06 AM, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo" <thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:26:45 -0200, Muhammad Gelbana <m.gelb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Can someone clarify why would play! be better than tapestry in this test? > > I guess only someone with play! internal architecture can tell you this for > sure. I also think that is probable that its usage of Netty > (https://netty.io/), which uses NIO and asynchronous IO, instead of servlet > containers (usually synchronous) is an important factor. I'm playing with the > idea of running Tapestry over Vert.X (http://vertx.io/), but no code written > yet. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
