-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck,
On 5/12/2009 12:27 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: David Kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net] >> Subject: Re: Performance with many small requests >> >> Incrementing a counter can't be much of a synchronization bottleneck, >> and if I switch to an AtomicInteger, it should be even less of one. > > Actually, it won't. There's a slight performance difference between > the two mechanisms, but it's usually in favor of the synchronized > increment, not the AtomicInteger, at least on my dual-core AMD 64 system > running JDK 6u12 in 64-bit server mode on Vista. The difference is only > a few percent, so you should just code it whichever way you find more > maintainable. (Test program available on request; it would be > interesting to see if the same relationship exists on a modern Intel chip.) High monitor contention or low? I can run your test code on a Core 2 Duo if you want to publish it. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkoJnmYACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDvxgCgsJr3YwJRFNh4ibZEQacaIWcN 1QcAnA5rOrqpu3WMqiBhzUZ6si3bI0lX =9sJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
