B
Bill Wood
Guest
Progress does lots of tests in lots of environments.... You definitely don't need to support all 4 transports concurrently to see a benefit. Your last point though hits the nail on the head, partially: Ultimately both PAS for OE and Classic AppServer are AVMs (ABL Virtual Machines) that execute ABL byte-code. The byte-code is the same, and if the machine is identical, and is CPU bound, then the speed of executing a line of ABL won't matter. But the AVM is limited by the resources on a machine. As you use more memory, more disk IO and more CPU you will start running into limitations on a machine. This is why you will see improvement under load with PAS for OE because it uses less resources overall for the same amount of 'raw' ABL processing power. In other words, a similar sized machine will be able to handle more requests faster with PAS for OE than Classic AppServer. Or, a machine handling the same number of requests will use fewer resources with PAS for OE than Classic. The ABL byte-code is processed the same way, but there is less contention for scarce resources, and less swapping/switching with the new architecture.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...