-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tony,
Tony Anecito wrote: > Actually I just saw some reports on the new quad intel 45nm > processors and they are much faster than 15msec. Yes, but the windows timer resolution sucks. :( > To justify new hardware and predict scalability Capacity Planning > groups have to show the before/after performance. Rather than timing one operation once using nanosecond resolution, try timing many things many times and then taking the average. I'd bet that the margin of error gets lost in the noise, anyway. > I have seen web apps operate in the 4msec range on commercial servlet > containers. > > I am trying to show a fortune 50 company that Tomcat is fast and a > viable replacement that can scale. But the commercial product does > have microsecond resolution in its logs. Tomcat's performance shouldn't be able to be disproven just because there are fewer zeros after the 'seconds' decimal point. > I have measured the System.currentTimeNanos() and found it to be down > below 1usec execute time so not sure what you are thinking. You are simply at the mercy of the logger in most cases. Feel free to write your own logger -- or subclass an existing one and change the timer display from using System.currentTimeMillis to System.currentTimeNanos. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHO7N49CaO5/Lv0PARAncdAJ4vftWNwkpggUclYlUApdRexVQnOQCeI8xa JH4FGBUVrOhSemX/iRD4Ii0= =Epbv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
