Udostępnij za pośrednictwem

ASP.NET MVC 3 Performance – on par with MVC 2

  • Artykuł

Now that the final version of MVC 3 has been released I think information about the performance characteristics of this latest installment would be very useful for those weighing the pros and cons of updating their MVC 2 applications. In this post I will talk about what you might expect when moving to MVC 3. The short answer is things should be about the same.

Of course that short statement is not accurate because the only correct answer to such performance questions is: “it depends”. It depends on what your application does and which features it is using: database connections, business logic, output caching, html helpers, etc. I say this because in a moment I will present some numbers and they might not correspond to what you would see in your application. But they should provide you with a good starting point.

The more detailed answer is that some applications will perform better while others will perform worse. That is because as we added new features (dependency injection, improved filters, etc.) some components of MVC 3 got slower than in MVC 2 simply because they are now doing more work. At the same time we have introduced targeted performance optimizations which improved other components. The only definite way you can know the impact on your application is if you carefully measure performance yourself. At the end of this post I will provide a rough list of some of the things that have gotten faster or slower.

The Setup

The application I will use for the tests is the default “Internet Application” project template that ships with every installation of MVC. While quite small, it is still a pretty good choice because it uses a wide variety of MVC features. This means that the test exercises a large part of the framework without focusing on any individual features.

For my tests I have the following applications:

  1. MVC 2 Aspx Internet Application project running against MVC 2 runtime
  2. MVC 2 Aspx Internet Application project running against MVC 3 runtime
  3. MVC 3 Aspx Internet Application project running against MVC 3 runtime
  4. MVC 3 Razor Internet Application project running against MVC 3 runtime

I modified each of these applications in the following ways to ensure consistency and remove unnecessary noise from the results:

  • Set debug=”false” in the root Web.config file.
  • Changed application to build in Release mode.
  • Changed the FormsAuthenticationService and MembershipService classes to return hardcoded values (I do not want to test database connection latency).

For each of the applications I executed the following sequence of requests and recorded the throughput (number of requests per second). The sequence ran for about 1 hour in our performance testing lab (meaning that the results should be amortized with respect to any other OS tasks that might have occurred on the server).

  1. GET /Home/Index (arrive at site)
  2. GET /Account/LogOn (click on “log on” link)
  3. POST /Account/LogOn (attempt to log on with invalid credentials)
  4. GET /Account/Register (click on “register” link)
  5. POST /Account/Register (submit the registration form)

The Results

Application Requests/second (higher is better) % change (wrt baseline)
1. MVC 2 Aspx on v2 8135 (baseline) n/a
2. MVC 2 Aspx on v3 7987 -1.82%
3. MVC 3 Aspx on v3 7457 -8.33%
4. MVC 3 Razor on v3 7136 -12.28%

Note: The above results were captured on a 12-core server and should only be used for comparative purposes. Absolute RPS values on your own machine might de vastly different but their relative distribution should remain the same. 

Applications 1 vs. 2

As you can see from comparing the results for Application 1 and Application 2 the difference is quite small. In fact –1.82% falls within the margin of error. Application 1 and Application 2 are the same identical application, except 1. references System.Web.Mvc.dll version 2.0 and 2. references System.Web.Mvc.dll version 3.0. These results are why we say that MVC 3 is on par with the performance characteristics of MVC 2.

Of course followers of Scott Guthrie will point out that with the RC2 release he claimed that MVC 3 was faster than MVC 2. While that was true at the time it is not correct any longer for RTM. We had to undo a pretty significant performance fix related to model metadata caching because it caused some functional bugs (after all it does not matter how fast your application is if it does not actually work correctly). However, we will have that improvement available as an add-on in MVC Futures and we will roll it into MVC 4.

Applications 2 vs. 3

Comparing Application 2 with Application 3 shows that 3. is –6.64% slower. However, in this case the runtimes are the same. The difference is in the project templates used. The project template that ships with MVC 3 has more functionality enabled by default. Most notably it has unobtrusive client-side validation enabled; MVC 2 project templates did not have client-side validation enabled. The extra time is taken up inspecting the model metadata and emitting additional markup and javascript code. Of course while page rendering will be slower, the overall result of enabling client-side validation should be reduced load on the server as the majority of invalid inputs will be caught on the client thus avoiding the need for unnecessary roundtrips.

Applications 3 vs. 4

The comparison of Application 3 and Application 4 will be of interest to those looking at adopting the new Razor view engine. Application 4 is –4.3% slower than Application 3. This shows that using Razor does have a performance cost. However, that difference is not that big and is outweighed by the elegance and increased readability of the new view engine. Razor is also a new technology and I am sure that as it matures we will be able to optimize it even further.

The Changes

At the beginning of this post I promised that I would list how the various features or components of MVC changed in their performance characteristics. This list is compiled from our internal performance tests as well as change logs. It is meant to be taken as informational only. Your results may vary and depends on how you actually use each feature and what else you have happening in your application

Things that got faster (in no particular order):

  • Expression caching (internal subsystem that helps in the performance of methods that accept lambdas)
  • URL generation
  • Action lookup
  • Filter invocation
  • TagBuilder

Things that got slower (also in no particular order):

  • Things for which Dependency Injection entry points have been exposed
  • Auto-generated editor and display helpers
  • Model binding

Of course I am not going to tell you by how much things have changed because it depends... you will have to measure yourself.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    January 17, 2011
    Nice work. However, I expect next post on "how to improve performance server side with MVC3" - maybe with David Ebbo template transforming aspx to code?

  • Anonymous
    January 17, 2011
    Andrei, do you mean precompiled views? Cause that wouldn't affect performance except for the startup time of the application.

  • Anonymous
    January 17, 2011
    Good Efforts

  • Anonymous
    January 17, 2011
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 18, 2011
    hrvoje, these tests were performed on a 12-core 16GB of RAM x64 2008 Enterprise server. Requests are coming from seperate machines (300 virtual parallel clients total), and everything is on a private network. IIS is configured with default values. At some point in the future I'll blog more about general testing methodologies for MVC.

  • Anonymous
    January 18, 2011
    that's great, thanx for info! It would be interesting to compare this with regular asp.net webforms app! And while you have all that machines in place, maybe test clean installation of some OSS .net products: Dontnetnuke, Orchard, N2CMS, ... :) ?

  • Anonymous
    January 18, 2011
    It would be quite difficult to construct valid (apples-to-apples) comparison of all of these applications because they don't always do the same thing (because it highly depends on the scenarios that you are targetting). Ultimately, it's up to the various application developers to ensure they perform as best as possible.

  • Anonymous
    January 27, 2011
    as far as i understand - mvc 2 work slowly than mvc 3? Because mvc 2 - 8135 request per second mvc 3 razor 3 - 7136 ... isn't it?

  • Anonymous
    January 27, 2011
    jj, the number means how many requests the server can handle per second. A higher number means that the server can handle more requests and therefore performs better