Is JSP faster than ASP?

I want to know whether JSP Runtime Environment is faster than ASP. It will be very helpfull if i get any benchmark reports. AuRevoir!

id suggest you do it yourself, no-one is going to write up this sort of stuff without you paying for it
in any case i'd dare to suggest that asp would be faster than jsp ( running on different servers no doubt; but given both windows os's ) because asp is basically vbscript which i imagine would be faster for the server to compile given a win box than jsp -> jvm -> server -> client ( if thats even how it works. ).
my opinion...

Similar Messages

I understand that a XSL transformation is faster than JSP

Hi all
let's say the datasource solution provides data ,
I'm under the impression that you can make the XSL loop through the information do various logic on the data and represent the data much faster than can be accomplished with JSP
Is there anyone else out there that understands the same ?
stev

I tend to doubt it. The XSL is interpreted (well, usually) where as the JSP is compiled. Sure, you can write really bad JSP code that underperforms really good transforms, but I'd tend to believe that in general it would be faster than XSL.
That said, XSL can provide for greater flexibility than JSP rendering and that may be easily worth any small performance penalty it may have.
Chuck

How JSP is faster than Servlets ??????

can anyone tell me why and how jsp is faster than servlets.
i want the detailed description of this question.
thanks in advance..

Hi simmy1,
The performance of JSP pages is very close to that of servlets. However, users may experience a perceptible delay when a JSP page is accessed for the very first time. This is because the JSP page undergoes a "translation phase" wherein it is converted into a servlet by the JSP engine. Once this servlet is dynamically compiled and loaded into memory, it follows the servlet life cycle for request processing. Here, the jspInit() method is automatically invoked by the JSP engine upon loading the servlet, followed by the _jspService() method, which is responsible for request processing and replying to the client. Do note that the lifetime of this servlet is non-deterministic - it may be removed from memory at any time by the JSP engine for resource-related reasons. When this happens, the JSP engine automatically invokes the jspDestroy() method allowing the servlet to free any previously allocated resources.
Subsequent client requests to the JSP page do not result in a repeat of the translation phase as long as the servlet is cached in memory, and are directly handled by the servlet's service() method in a concurrent fashion (i.e. the service() method handles each client request within a seperate thread concurrently.)
I hope this will help you out.
Regards,
TirumalaRao.
Developer TechnicalSupport,
Sun Microsystems,India.

Is Java Server Page slower than ASP?

I wonder If I use web page with database then JSP, ASP - which one is slower than?

Orion is pretty blisteringly fast too, particularly if you stick Jikes on it as the compiler (which makes the compilation of a page some 10 times faster.)
For my site, what I was seeing when I benchmarked it, was that JSP was slower than ASP when loading a page for the first time, but then JSP took over after the page was already compiled.

Comparing JSP ,PHP AND ASP

Hello
Can you send me few reasons why is JSP better then ASP nad PHP.
Thanks Jelena

I don't know much of PHP but I can defintely compare it to ASP. ASP is a Windows proprietary technology that runs primarily on Windows machines. It uses either JavaScript or VBScript as the underlying language and has some limitations. For one there is the lack of multithreading which makes tasks that require asyncronous processing rather difficult. VBScript is a subset of Visual Basic which means there are a lot of things (objects and such) left out. You can create objects encompassing anymissing functionality out of COM using a CreateObject statement but if the objects were created using Visual Basic then there are threading issues that severly limit the amount of concurrent access. There is no direct support for polymorphism and inhereitance in VB which means Visual Basic is not a true object oriented language.
JSP overcomes all of these limitations by using Java as the underlying programming language. Java has language level support for threading that eases the burden of concurrent access and makes asynchronous tasks a snap. It is based on the J2EE standard rather than a proprietary technology. There are various implementations of this standard that allow you to plug JSP apps into virtually any webserver running on almost any hardware. Java includes direct support for polymorphism and inheritance making it a true object oriented language.
ASP.Net/VB.Net overcomes all of the mistakes made with ASP/VB by mimicking the Java/JSP platform. This shows that the ideas implemented in Java are rather strong ideas and have longevity. If you are writing your 1st web app and have limited knowledge of how the net works then maybe VB/ASP is a better starting point for it's simplicity and integrated environment. However, when you are ready to build scalable enterprise level web apps then JSP is definitely the better choice. Take it from someone experieinced in both.
Cliff

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?: When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

Thanks Erik,
If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
As an aside....
I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...) were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
What's wrong with this picture?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

I have no real idea, but I suspect
* the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
* it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

How can I get rid of this Lollipop update? My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem. Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen. The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

Thanks. I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager. It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources. (Fresh boot and all)
What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
<Rant off>

Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

Hi,
Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display. The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Whether it's important to you, only you can know. To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad. For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

Is JSP faster than ASP?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for