On 09/09/2012 19:51, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 09/09/2012 19:44, Mark Thomas wrote: >> This is part of issue b) in Konstantin's comments in TOMCAT-NEXT.txt >> >> The current DirContext implementation supports caching in most but not >> all circumstances. It would be possible to insert a cache into the >> StandardRoot implementation but I am not convinced it is necessary. The >> read-cache built into most HDDs may be sufficient. Before starting a >> cache implementation, I would like to see some performance test cases >> that demonstrate that the DirContext implementation with caching is >> significantly faster than the new implementation without caching. > > I would add that if even if the new implementation without caching > performs roughly the same as the old implementation with caching but > adding caching makes the new implementation even faster than that would > also convince me of the need to add caching although not with the same > priority.
And that is why we do performance testing rather than making assumptions about what we think the performance will be. A simple JMeter test requesting the same static file over and over again shows that the original DirContext implementation is around 5 times faster than the new Resources implementation. I think the do we need caching question has just been answered firmly "Yes!" Using YourKit, I can see where problems are. I can improve the new implementation to only 3 times slower with some very simple caching within a single request but for improvement beyond that we will need caching of resources across requests that includes caching of content. I plan to look at this next. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
