The load across the ports wont be equally distributed.Some ports might have more traffic. I tried using 10 threads in both acceptors and connectors , but it slowed down the proxy even more.I am assuming that this might be due to the hardware limitations on my laptop. Apart from having multiple threads within the acceptors and connectors, is it more scalable to have one acceptor/connector per port?
Regds Monajit -----Original Message----- From: Mark Webb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 6:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Low throughput Is this data that is going to each port the same? Or are some ports getting more data than others? You might be able to share acceptors across different ports. On 3/6/07, Monajit Choudhury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its throughput. Sorry for the spell mistake :-). And the sample size was > about 10,000. > > Regds > Monajit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Monajit Choudhury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Low thoroughput > > Hi > I was testing the throughput of the sumpup example using apache jmeter. > I am using 100 threads with loop forever set to true.I get a throughput > of about 99/sec.But when I use the proxy(provided in the example)in > between the sumup client and the server, the throughput drops to about > 60/sec.The proxy as of now uses 1 acceptor,1 connector and 1 > clienthandler per port. Is this a good approach or should I increase the > number of acceptors and connectors? > > > PS: I am using my laptop to run the tests, so don't expect a very high > performance. What I am looking for is the % increase in latency added by > the proxy. > > > Regds > Monajit > -- ..Cheers Mark
