|
|
|
|
|
When Eduardo highlighted the excellent SPECjAppServer 2004 results for GlassFish v1 and PostgreSQL, he speculated that "GlassFish v2 should enable a better number (or similar number on cheaper hardware)." Now, just two weeks later, we have a new SPECjAppServer 2004 result which does use GlassFish v2 (while keeping PostgreSQL 8.2.4 for the DB). Its 813.73 JOPS are about 4.5% better than the 778.14 JOPS obtained in the earlier run with GlassFish v1. And, as Jignesh describes, these new results were obtained using about 33% less hardware. So Eduardo's predication was right on both counts--a better number and cheaper hardware. |
Disclaimers: SPEC and the benchmark name SPECjAppServer 2004 are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of 07/23/06. The comparison presented is based on GlassFish v2 run on Sun Fire X4200 (4 chips, 8 cores) - 813.73 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard and GlassFish v1 run on Sun Fire X4200 (6 chips, 12 cores) - 778.14 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard. For the latest SPECjAppServer 2004 benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org/.
Picture by Bo Nash.
|
We're on a bit of a benchmarking kick lately. If you missed it yesterday, be sure to read about the new SPECjAppServer 2004 results for GlassFish v1 and v2. Hint: they're good. Okay, so GlassFish performs well for traditional Java EE technologies. But how well does it handle scripting languages, such as Ruby? Vishnu Gopal decided to find out, benchmarking the same app when deployed on JRuby/Glassfish versus Mongrel/C. Guess what? More good results for GlassFish. In one portion of his summary, for example, Vishnu notes that the GlassFish deployment provides "twice the reply rate in half the benchmark time." |
|
Josh reports another SPECjAppServer 2004 result: 778.14 JOPS@Standard based on GlassFish v1. Although the number is lower than the 883.66 JOPS@Standard we just reported, the submission is interesting in that it is all open source, software (GlassFish, PostgreSQL,...) and hardware (T2000). Playing the leapfrogging game, GlassFish v2 should enable a better number (or similar number on cheaper hardware). Check Josh's writeup for more details. |
Disclaimers: SPEC and the benchmark name SPECjAppServer 2004 are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of 07/10/07. The comparison presented is based on GlassFish v1 run on Sun Fire X4200 (6 chips, 12 cores) - 778.14 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard and on GlassFish v2 run on Sun Fire T2000 (1 chips, 8 cores) 1.4ghz - 883.66 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard. For the latest SPECjAppServer 2004 benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org/.
|
Bragging time: 883.66 JOPS@Standard - GlassFish v2 now has the best SPECjAppServer 2004 on T2000; better than BEA's, Oracle's and IBM's. Read Scott's writeup for the details and caveats. The result reflects improvements in many areas including EJBs, JMS, JSP compilation, Servlet connector and container, connection pooling, CMP 2.1 and more. GFv2 has also improved in areas not covered by SPECjAppServer 2004 like Web Services, EJB 3.0, JSF, JPA and others. |
As Scott says, benchmarking is a leap-frogging game: tomorrow there may be another T2000 submission that is better than ours, but we have joined the game and we intend to keep hopping in front... And this benchmark is another example that you don't have to choose between Open Source and Enterprise Features: you can have both.
Disclaimers: SPEC and the benchmark name SPECjAppServer 2004 are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Sun Fire T2000 (1 chips, 8 cores) 1.4ghz 883.66 SPECjAppServer2004 JOPS@Standard. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of 07/10/06. For the latest SPECjAppServer 2004 benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org/.
