Bug 1026339

Summary:	Perf degradation (still in acceptable boundaries) for WS Security for EAP 6.x releases
Product:	[JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6	Reporter:	Rostislav Svoboda <rsvoboda>
Component:	Web Services	Assignee:	Alessio Soldano <asoldano>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Rostislav Svoboda <rsvoboda>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:	Russell Dickenson <rdickens>
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.2.0
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-07-17 13:28:51 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Rostislav Svoboda 2013-11-04 13:24:11 UTC

During EAP 6.x releases I noticed small degradations in performance of WS Security. EAP 6.0.0 GA contains CXF 2.4.6, current EAP 6.2.0 ER7 contains CXF 2.7.7. Current results are still in 5 % range for acceptable degradation. 

We should focus on wsse improvements if possible. There were bigger changes with EAP 6.1.0 GA when several concurrency issues had to be fixed - so we are working properly but little bit slower.


I checked all GA releases running against productized JBossWS CXF client 4.2.2.
Biggest degradation for wsse comes with EAP 6.1.0 GA. 

Providing data for combination jbossws-cxf-client 4.2.2 against EAP 6.2.0 ER7 and 6.0.0 GA. So these numbers reflect perf changes on server side.

Test 620 ER7		Clients	Requests by client	Requests per second
wsse.SimpleSignEncryptTest 80	5000			747
wsse.SimpleSignTest	   80	5000			1821.73

EAP 600 #1	EAP 600 #2	EAP 600 #3	EAP 600 #4
777.54		759.69		775.78		757.9
1918.62		1872.6		1930.78		1859.51
			
0.960722278	0.983295818	0.9629018536	0.9856181554
0.9495001616	0.9728345616	0.9435202353	0.9796828197



Data taken from https://jenkins.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/hudson/view/EAP6/view/EAP6-Performance/job/eap-6x-ws-perf-load-security/ and https://jenkins.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/hudson/view/EAP6/view/EAP6-Performance/job/eap-6x-ws-perf-load-security-600/

Comment 1 Alessio Soldano 2013-11-05 18:01:12 UTC

Rostislav, please provide data for EAP 6.1. I have the feeling the perf degradation is pretty much all in the 6.0->6.1 upgrade.

Comment 2 Rostislav Svoboda 2013-11-06 07:47:07 UTC

Agree with you, as I said in description there were bigger changes with EAP 6.1.0 GA when several concurrency issues had to be fixed - so we are working properly but little bit slower.

Working on data from EAP 6.1.0 GA - created job for it https://jenkins.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/hudson/job/eap-6x-ws-perf-load-security-610/

I already had these numbers bud I deleted them and kept just 600 :)

Comment 3 Rostislav Svoboda 2013-11-06 09:03:51 UTC

EAP 610 #1	EAP 610 #2	EAP 610 #3	EAP 610 #4
749.42		746.49		746.85		731.83
1793.26		1829.61		1796.78		1758.92

Comparison: EAP 620 ER7 result / EAP 610 #X			
0.9967708361	1.0006831974	1.0002008435	1.0207288578
1.0158761139	0.9956930712	1.0138859515	1.0357094126

Do you want 6.0.1 GA data too ?

Comment 4 Alessio Soldano 2013-11-06 09:14:25 UTC

If it's not too much effort, yes, 6.0.1.GA data would be interesting, as the 610 data above confirm our claims that the perf degradation is not in the 6.1.0->6.2.0 move.

Comment 5 Rostislav Svoboda 2013-11-06 10:46:15 UTC

EAP 601 #1	EAP 601 #2	EAP 601 #3	EAP 601 #4
772.26		776.58		769.59		776.14
1905.08		1904.49		1888.3		1909.96

Comparison: EAP 620 ER7 result / EAP 601#X
0.9672908088	0.9619099127	0.970646708	0.9624552271
0.9562485565	0.9565447968	0.9647460679	0.9538053153

https://jenkins.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/hudson/view/EAP6/view/EAP6-Performance/job/eap-6x-ws-perf-load-security-601/

EAP 600 and 601 have quite similar results, the change happened with EAP 610.

Comment 6 Rostislav Svoboda 2014-07-17 13:28:51 UTC

Closing, CXF upstream has moved towards streaming approach for WS Security. This will improve performance of WS Security. Mentioned degradation is in acceptable boundaries.