Hi Tee,<br><br>Keep-alive is ok. But in a lot of situation, we can not use keep-alive.<br><br>I will try to read your code and to see whether I could contribute some code:)<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Jiming<br><br>>Hi Jiming,<br>
><br>>In non-keepalive connections, most time is spent on establishing and<br>>closing connections, so I don't think there will be much difference in<br>>performance.<br>><br>>In keepalive connections, Netty is much faster than Tomcat according to<br>
>your test result, although I'm not sure what's your definition of 'much<br>>faster.'<br>><br>>I think there's enough room for even further performance improvement in<br>>Netty's HTTP codec as you said though. Please feel free to post some<br>
>patches if you found some hot spot and got a fix.<br>><br>>Thanks,<br>>Trustin<br>><br>>Jiming Liu wrote:<br>>> Hi Tee,<br>>><br>>> I tried to test the performance of Netty(3.2alpha3) and Tomcat, and<br>
>> dispointedly found that Netty is not much faster than tomcat as I expected.<br>>><br>>> The result is here,<br>>> <a href="http://jiming.javaeye.com/blog/618026">http://jiming.javaeye.com/blog/618026</a><br>
>><br>>> Today, I profiled the netty example by JProfiler and found that it is<br>>> possible to improve the performance.<br>>> following is partial result of JProfiler, wish could be useful.<br>>><br clear="all">
谢谢<br><br>刘继明<br>