Hi, Thanks for replying; please see inline. anonymous wrote : There are many differences in what you tested and the wiki page. | | Mainly, they were testing field updates on attached objects across a cluster. And you are just testing the speed of attaching objects. | Yes, you are right, they are different. In fact, the expectations from our test are based on the wiki's results for the cases named "TreeCache" and "100-0 PojoCache". Unless they were totally misinterpreted, then even a very cautious estimate for the throughput would be, in my opinion, about 1500 "different POJO attachment" per second. At no point in the stress does the throughput go above a quarter of that figure. It should also be noted that no network traffic / local replication efforts are involved in our case since there is only one local cache. anonymous wrote : If your objects are simple strings, just use the plain TreeCache. Actually, the system's needs are for more complex POJOs. Attaching small String objects was chosen for the stress test because: 1. They are small objects, so throughput is expected to be high, and 2. Strings are not aspectized, so this test can be run by other people without the need to run aopc on our classes. I guess that at the end of the day, the question is how fast this code is supposed to run, given that environment. Our hope is that perhaps something can be done to increase the throughput to a level acceptable for our system. Thanks for reading, Lior Neuman R&D Team MailVision LTD View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008699#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...