Re: mod_jk performance
Hi Peter, That is why I mentioned it. We deliver our static content from other servers, and had originally considered hiding our TCs behind apache for 'security reasons'. After seeing the speed difference, and the fact that their isn't really a security difference if you just push all the traffic straight through anyway, we decided not to put Apache between our users and our Tomcat servers. If I didn't need to use re-writes, and complicated rules on our apaches, I would also use THTTP for performance reasons. Andrew On Sep 16, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Peter Flynn wrote: OK, that's useful information. But I have 300,000+ static HTML files to server, and about 10 JSP files. I'm surely not switching my entire server to Tomcat...:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tomcat directory protection (was: Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:29, Hassan Schroeder wrote: KEREM ERKAN wrote: Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to that Apache is not? I don't know if Kerem Erkan was talking about exploits, but I have looked for some facility in Tomcat equivalent to Apache .htaccess files and failed to find any mention of them. Is it possible to do this kind of IP-level or simple username/password restriction in Tomcat? ///Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:50, Andrew Miehs wrote: We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC 5.0 and Apache 2.0 If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk OK, that's useful information. But I have 300,000+ static HTML files to server, and about 10 JSP files. I'm surely not switching my entire server to Tomcat...:-) ///Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:52, Mark Thomas wrote: KEREM ERKAN wrote: Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation than Apache (for now). I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;) I will certainly document how to fix my problem once it's fixed, but anything I have ever sent to Bugzilla either gets ignored or argued about ad infinitum and nothing ever done, so any doc I write will go on my blog or my web site (from where anyone is free to take/copy it). ///Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
-Original Message- From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:53 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: mod_jk performance KEREM ERKAN wrote: Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation than Apache (for now). I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;) Mark I would really love to. As soon as I get more experience on Tomcat (I work with Tomcat for approx. 6-7 months), I will try to contribute a little. ;) Don't get me wrong, but Tomcat documentation is not very explanatory and does not have many examples for a newbie to get his hands on Tomcat easily. Cheers, Kerem
RE: mod_jk performance
Well I tried both, and as my websites do not have a very high traffic (I have approximately a total of 50 GB per month) the speed is not primarily a concern to me, I am looking to the security side of the problem and Apache+mod_jk does its job better than only Tomcat concerning security. I have stress tested Apache+Tomcat and only Tomcat and it seems like %30 is too high. I can suggest using mod_jk 1.2.10 with Tomcat 5.5.9, surprisingly you get very similar results. Mod_jk 1.2.10 had some performance problems but I did not thoroughly test why. I hope this may help a little. Cheers, Kerem -Original Message- From: marc ratun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:47 PM To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: mod_jk performance Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules. Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation? Marc [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
Marc If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk , you could try other alternatives and still keep apache in front to serve static content and use other modules. You can use apache mod_proxy to forward request on 8080 [or whatever your run tomcat on] to tomcat without going through mod_jk There are pros and cons to take this approach, but it may suffice in your case. Hope it helps. Bruno Georges Glencore International AG Tel. +41 41 709 3204 Fax +41 41 709 3000 marc ratun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org ail.com cc: Subject: mod_jk performance 14.09.05 13:46 Please respond Distribute: to Tomcat Users Personal? |---| List| [ ] x | |---| Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules. Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation? Marc [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEGAL DISCLAIMER. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are strictly confidential and they may not be used or disclosed by someone who is not a named recipient. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to this email inserting the word misdirected as the message and delete this e-mail from your system. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
AFAIK mod_proxy performs worse than mod_jk. Just my 2 cents. Kerem -Original Message- From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM To: Tomcat Users List Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: mod_jk performance Marc If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk , you could try other alternatives and still keep apache in front to serve static content and use other modules. You can use apache mod_proxy to forward request on 8080 [or whatever your run tomcat on] to tomcat without going through mod_jk There are pros and cons to take this approach, but it may suffice in your case. Hope it helps. Bruno Georges Glencore International AG Tel. +41 41 709 3204 Fax +41 41 709 3000 marc ratun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org ail.com cc: Subject: mod_jk performance 14.09.05 13:46 Please respond Distribute: to Tomcat Users Personal? |---| List | [ ] x | |---| Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules. Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation? Marc [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEGAL DISCLAIMER. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are strictly confidential and they may not be used or disclosed by someone who is not a named recipient. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to this email inserting the word misdirected as the message and delete this e-mail from your system. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
marc ratun wrote: Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Why would that be sad? 30% performance decrease still offers you a 300% performance increase over CGI or mod_proxy. Since you decided to use mod_jk that uses AJP protocol for both binary HTTP and constant connection pool, you have also the load balancer capabilities that will allow you to either segment or double your backend application servers. Thus with two backend servers you will have both speed increase and failover over a single box implementation. OTOH if you just wish Apache with all the goodies, but with Servlet support, then 30% performance decrease is very much acceptable thought. If OTOH you don't need legacy Apache modules, use Tomcat 5.5 with Native support that will both outperform any Apache httpd server (and most others) for both for dynamic and static content. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM ERKAN wrote: ... I am looking to the security side of the problem and Apache+mod_jk does its job better than only Tomcat concerning security. How so? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
Kerem, You are probably right, I personnaly never faced any issues with any of them. However, Tom can you be more specific about the type of traffic your app has to serve and what are performance/response time requirements. Hardware and network, server and JVM configuration can also be either a bottleneck or a way to improve the overall performance of your syste. Ideally, when you have metrics on the different parts of the systems it is easier to tune . Bruno Georges Glencore International AG Tel. +41 41 709 3204 Fax +41 41 709 3000 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Tomcat Users List' tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org ari.com.tr cc: Subject: RE: mod_jk performance 14.09.05 14:00 Please respond Distribute: to Tomcat Users Personal? |---| List| [ ] x | |---| AFAIK mod_proxy performs worse than mod_jk. Just my 2 cents. Kerem -Original Message- From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM To: Tomcat Users List Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: mod_jk performance Marc If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk , you could try other alternatives and still keep apache in front to serve static content and use other modules. You can use apache mod_proxy to forward request on 8080 [or whatever your run tomcat on] to tomcat without going through mod_jk There are pros and cons to take this approach, but it may suffice in your case. Hope it helps. Bruno Georges Glencore International AG Tel. +41 41 709 3204 Fax +41 41 709 3000 marc ratun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org ail.com cc: Subject: mod_jk performance 14.09.05 13:46 Please respond Distribute: to Tomcat Users Personal? |---| List | [ ] x | |---| Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules. Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation? Marc [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LEGAL DISCLAIMER. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are strictly confidential and they may not be used or disclosed by someone who is not a named recipient. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to this email inserting the word misdirected as the message and delete this e-mail from your system. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: mod_jk performance
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat, it is more customizable and it is much user/admin friendly to configure :-) (at least for me) I configure all security related stuff on Apache and have my Tomcat listen only on AJP connector with 127.0.0.1:8009. Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation than Apache (for now). Best regards, Kerem -Original Message- From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:13 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: mod_jk performance KEREM ERKAN wrote: ... I am looking to the security side of the problem and Apache+mod_jk does its job better than only Tomcat concerning security. How so? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
Apache is easier to configure, but at a 50% performance hit for pure JSP pages Andrew On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:18 PM, KEREM ERKAN wrote: Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat, it is more customizable and it is much user/admin friendly to configure :-) (at least for me) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM ERKAN wrote: Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to that Apache is not? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
-Original Message- From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:30 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: mod_jk performance KEREM ERKAN wrote: Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to that Apache is not? I am not aware of any critical exploits Apache or Tomcat have. As I said, I only think about restricting access to some of my server files. You may be able to do this with Tomcat but from my point of view, it is harder to configure. That's all. Cheers, Kerem smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: mod_jk performance
I use Apache/mod_jk/Tomcat for a long time on production servers with load balancing/failover (and with high traffic sites) and I'm sure it's not 30% slower than a pure Tomcat. I use Apache to deliver static files, manage SSL and other apache specifics modules. Then, Tomcat only manage dynamics requests (servlets and JSPs) without SSL. With this distribution of the functions, the Tomcat is less stressed and its performances increase. And when the Tomcat load increase, I add a Tomcat in the cluster... So, I think it's a good way to use it. On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:46:51 + marc ratun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat. This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal. Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules. Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation? Marc [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/ _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC 5.0 and Apache 2.0 If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk Andrew On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote: I use Apache/mod_jk/Tomcat for a long time on production servers with load balancing/failover (and with high traffic sites) and I'm sure it's not 30% slower than a pure Tomcat. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mod_jk 1.2.10 had some performance problems but I did not thoroughly test why. Is is proved ? Where do you find this ? I tested mod_jk 1.2.14 (but not stressed it) and it seems to be a good version... What sort of performance problems do you mention ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
But, in a web site, there is never only JSPs : there is a lot of static files (images, css, js, ...) So, if you don't have a apache in the frontend to deliver theses static files, there is an overload for the TC server... So, your tests stressed only light JSPs or a real site ? and what is your solution for load-balancing/failover ? On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Andrew Miehs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC 5.0 and Apache 2.0 If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk Andrew On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote: I use Apache/mod_jk/Tomcat for a long time on production servers with load balancing/failover (and with high traffic sites) and I'm sure it's not 30% slower than a pure Tomcat. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
We run F5 BigIPs as our loadbalancers, and have seperated images, etc onto another server IE: i.domain.com for images, and www.domain.com for dynamic content. F5 provides a feature call iRules to do the splitting between hosts for you, but I would NOT use this on a high traffic site. Andrew On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote: But, in a web site, there is never only JSPs : there is a lot of static files (images, css, js, ...) So, if you don't have a apache in the frontend to deliver theses static files, there is an overload for the TC server... So, your tests stressed only light JSPs or a real site ? and what is your solution for load-balancing/failover ? On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Andrew Miehs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress tested. The tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test results, because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe I can send them when I test 1.2.14. By the way mod_jk site mentions 1.2.13 as its testing version. Is there a 1.2.14 really or did you write 14 by mistake? Cheers, Kerem -Original Message- From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM To: Tomcat Users List Cc: KEREM ERKAN Subject: Re: mod_jk performance On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mod_jk 1.2.10 had some performance problems but I did not thoroughly test why. Is is proved ? Where do you find this ? I tested mod_jk 1.2.14 (but not stressed it) and it seems to be a good version... What sort of performance problems do you mention ?
Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:16:59 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress tested. The tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test results, because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe I can send them when I test 1.2.14. I'm interested in such tests (or a link if it exists). By the way mod_jk site mentions 1.2.13 as its testing version. Is there a 1.2.14 really or did you write 14 by mistake? I wanted to say mod_jk 1.2.14 : it's not a mistake... but I don't understand what this meens ...?!? I receive this mail (see Announce_mod_jk_1.2.14 above) on July 26th and, at this date, the mod_jk site mentioned 1.2.14 as the latest and stable version (you can see the content of this version on the changelog : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html) Now, the mod_jk site mention 1.2.13 as the latest stable version... But the latest source version is : 1.2.14 !!! http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk/source/ So, Mladen, what this means ? What is the current stable version ? - Announce_mod_jk_1.2.14 received on July 26th : - Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:35:01 +0200 List-Post: mailto:announcements@jakarta.apache.org List-Id: Jakarta Announcements List announcements.jakarta.apache.org Reply-To: Jakarta General List general@jakarta.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list announcements@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 226 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jul 2005 21:26:36 - Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:26:31 +0200 From: Jean-frederic Clere [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041023 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: announcements@jakarta.apache.org, tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org, tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org, announce@apache.org Subject: [ANN] Apache Tomcat mod_jk 1.2.14 Web Server Connector released Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The Apache Tomcat team is pleased to announce the release of version 1.2.14 of the Apache Tomcat mod_jk web server connector. Tomcat is the reference implementation of a web application server which implements the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages specifications. mod_jk is a connector which allows a web server such as Apache HTTPD to act as a front end to the Tomcat web application server. This version fixes a number of minor bugs. See http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html for a complete list of changes. Source distribtions can be downloaded from an Apache Software Foundation mirror at: (they are named jakarta-tomcat-connectors-1.2.14.1-src.tar.gz and jakarta-tomcat-connectors-1.2.14.1-src.zip) http://jakarta.apache.org/site/sourceindex.cgi Binary distributions for a number of different operating systems and web servers can be downloaded from an Apache Software Foundation mirror at: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/binindex.cgi Documentation for using mod_jk with Tomcat 3.3, 4.1, 5.0 and 5.5 can be found at: http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/ The Apache Tomcat team. - Cheers, Kerem -Original Message- From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM To: Tomcat Users List Cc: KEREM ERKAN Subject: Re: mod_jk performance On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mod_jk 1.2.10 had some performance problems but I did not thoroughly test why. Is is proved ? Where do you find this ? I tested mod_jk 1.2.14 (but not stressed it) and it seems to be a good version... What sort of performance problems do you mention ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
So, I think your solution with F5 BigIPs-Tomcat is equivalent to the solution with Apache/mod_jk-Tomcat But the last is free and I don't know the difference in performances between the 2 solutions. On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:14:01 +0200 Andrew Miehs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We run F5 BigIPs as our loadbalancers, and have seperated images, etc onto another server IE: i.domain.com for images, and www.domain.com for dynamic content. F5 provides a feature call iRules to do the splitting between hosts for you, but I would NOT use this on a high traffic site. Andrew On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote: But, in a web site, there is never only JSPs : there is a lot of static files (images, css, js, ...) So, if you don't have a apache in the frontend to deliver theses static files, there is an overload for the TC server... So, your tests stressed only light JSPs or a real site ? and what is your solution for load-balancing/failover ? On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Andrew Miehs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress tested. The tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test results, because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe I can send them when I test 1.2.14. I'm interested in such tests (or a link if it exists). You can try Microsoft's Web Stress Tool which is free but it is old. I am also actually searching for a better stress tool. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E2C0585A-062A-439E- A67D-75A89AA36495displaylang=en By the way mod_jk site mentions 1.2.13 as its testing version. Is there a 1.2.14 really or did you write 14 by mistake? I wanted to say mod_jk 1.2.14 : it's not a mistake... but I don't understand what this meens ...?!? It seems there is a confusion in mod_jk's own site :-) I will download and compile 1.2.14 in a spare time and see how it performs. Cheers, Kerem smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress tested. The tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test results, because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe I can send them when I test 1.2.14. I'm interested in such tests (or a link if it exists). You can try Microsoft's Web Stress Tool which is free but it is old. I am also actually searching for a better stress tool. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E2C0585A-062A-439E- A67D-75A89AA36495displaylang=en I don't search a Stress Tool; I say I'm interest in the result of the stress. Another free Stress Tool is JMeter (http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/) Under Linux, I also used httperf (http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/httperf/) and autobench (http://www.xenoclast.org/autobench/) Regards. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
-Original Message- From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:49 PM To: Tomcat Users List Cc: KEREM ERKAN Subject: Re: mod_jk performance On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300 KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress tested. The tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test results, because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe I can send them when I test 1.2.14. I'm interested in such tests (or a link if it exists). You can try Microsoft's Web Stress Tool which is free but it is old. I am also actually searching for a better stress tool. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E2C0585A-062A -439E- A67D-75A89AA36495displaylang=en I don't search a Stress Tool; I say I'm interest in the result of the stress. Well as I said, I do not have the results for now, but when I test 1.2.14, I will surely share the results with the list. Cheers, Kerem smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM ERKAN wrote: Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation than Apache (for now). I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;) Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance
Well since I don't understand German, I don't konw how he tested. However in my stress testing which lots of static and JSPs, I found Apache + mod_jk performance is a littlle higher than TOMCAT only. I configured Apache with mod_cache. So I think only handling JSPs, TC only could be better than Apache + mod_jk. However in the real world, there is never only JSPs, there must have lots of static files. Thx, Xuekun - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
I had the same problem so if you look carefully, you can see the script changed to a sub-directory and was still trying to access ./libtool. The easiest way without modifying the script for me was just creating a link in that directory to point to the parent's libtool. I had to create 2 links in order for this to work till the end, just read the error when it fails and you will know where to create the links. -Original Message- From: Pimentel, William (Col) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: mod_jk performance Hello I've been unsuccesfully trying to compile mod_jk.so for Solaris 8, i get all kind of weird erros such as: sh: ./libtool: not found *** Error code 1 when there's a ./libtool in the current directory (native) The reason i'm trying to compile a new module is because the one i got some time ago doesn't work well, it's so slow when i try to display a jsp or servlet page over port 80 (apache), whereas it runs smoothly over port 8080 (tomcat). Can anybody tell me how to get this module to compile on Solaris 8?? i have tomcat 4.1.18 and Apache 2.0.x Thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk performance
I describe the process in my HOWTO: http://www.johnturner.com/howto I had a lot of problems getting it to compile on Solaris, and had to download and install all sorts of patches and Sun packages, and GNU packages, before it would work. Once I got the dev environment setup correctly, the compilation step was the same as Linux. I didn't need to install libtool, but I installed just about every other GNU dev tool. John -Original Message- From: Pimentel, William (Col) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: mod_jk performance Hello I've been unsuccesfully trying to compile mod_jk.so for Solaris 8, i get all kind of weird erros such as: sh: ./libtool: not found *** Error code 1 when there's a ./libtool in the current directory (native) The reason i'm trying to compile a new module is because the one i got some time ago doesn't work well, it's so slow when i try to display a jsp or servlet page over port 80 (apache), whereas it runs smoothly over port 8080 (tomcat). Can anybody tell me how to get this module to compile on Solaris 8?? i have tomcat 4.1.18 and Apache 2.0.x Thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk performance optimization
Thanx for your reply, for it really helped. I used jk from 3.3 and the previous error which appeard at mod_jk.log is gone. :-) But...(there's always a but) another error appears when I request several servlet tasks simultaneously. In mod_jk.log: [jk_ajp13_worker.c (381)]: Error ajp13_process_callback - write failed I've also checked tomcat.log and the following error appears: Ctx( /WebApplication ): Exception in: R( /WebApplication + /servlet/ServletObj + null) - java.lang.OutOfMemoryError no stack trace available After this the system is slower than ever. I tried to restart Tomcat but the system continues to be very...very slow. I'd appreciate if some clues about this problem could be thrown at me :-) Thanx. Serrano. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mod_jk performance optimization Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 2 May 2002, M. Serrano wrote: Hi. I've got installed in my box Linux, Apache 1.3.19, JDK 1.3.1 and TC 3.3.1 working with ajp13. The following error appeard in my mod_jk.log after a bit of continuous utilisation: [jk_ajp13_worker.c (203)]: connection_tcp_get_message: Error - jk_tcp_socket_recvfull failed [jk_ajp13_worker.c (621)]: Error reading request From the line numbers, you may use an older version of jk, try updating from CVS head first ( the bug may be already fixed ) ( you can use either the 'frozen' jk from 3.3 or j-t-c ). The error message means from some reasons tomcat didn't sent back any content - so you may need to look in tomcat's lots as well. ( the 'reading request' means the request from tomcat to jk to send a chunk of data ) Costin After analysing the server's config files and reading some threads, I concluded that the problem might be resolved through a bit of extra re-configuration. Although the problem appearence was delayed, it still existed. I wonder if anyone out there could help me with this subject. I'm sending in attach some lines of httpd.conf, server.xml and mod_jk.conf Thanx a lot for your time. Serrano. ## ## httpd.conf -- Apache HTTP server configuration file ## # # Timeout: The number of seconds before receives and sends time out. # Timeout 300 # # KeepAlive: Whether or not to allow persistent connections (more than # one request per connection). Set to Off to deactivate. # KeepAlive On # # MaxKeepAliveRequests: The maximum number of requests to allow # during a persistent connection. Set to 0 to allow an unlimited amount. # We recommend you leave this number high, for maximum performance. # MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 # # KeepAliveTimeout: Number of seconds to wait for the next request from the # same client on the same connection. # KeepAliveTimeout 15 # # Server-pool size regulation. Rather than making you guess how many # server processes you need, Apache dynamically adapts to the load it # sees --- that is, it tries to maintain enough server processes to # handle the current load, plus a few spare servers to handle transient # load spikes (e.g., multiple simultaneous requests from a single # Netscape browser). # # It does this by periodically checking how many servers are waiting # for a request. If there are fewer than MinSpareServers, it creates # a new spare. If there are more than MaxSpareServers, some of the # spares die off. The default values are probably OK for most sites. # MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 # # Number of servers to start initially --- should be a reasonable ballpark # figure. # StartServers 8 # # Limit on total number of servers running, i.e., limit on the number # of clients who can simultaneously connect --- if this limit is ever # reached, clients will be LOCKED OUT, so it should NOT BE SET TOO LOW. # It is intended mainly as a brake to keep a runaway server from taking # the system with it as it spirals down... # MaxClients 150 # # MaxRequestsPerChild: the number of requests each child process is # allowed to process before the child dies. The child will exit so # as to avoid problems after prolonged use when Apache (and maybe the # libraries it uses) leak memory or other resources. On most systems, this # isn't really needed, but a few (such as Solaris) do have notable leaks # in the libraries. For these platforms, set to something like 1 # or so; a setting of 0 means unlimited. # # NOTE: This value does not include keepalive requests after the initial # request per connection. For example, if a child process handles # an initial request and 10 subsequent keptalive requests, it # would only count as 1 request towards this limit. # MaxRequestsPerChild 200 # # DocumentRoot: The directory out of which you will serve your # documents. By default, all requests are taken from
RE: mod_jk performance optimization
If error handling, or something else, get into a recursive loop, it can eat up all available memory and result in symptoms like this. Cheers, Larry -Original Message- From: M. Serrano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mod_jk performance optimization Thanx for your reply, for it really helped. I used jk from 3.3 and the previous error which appeard at mod_jk.log is gone. :-) But...(there's always a but) another error appears when I request several servlet tasks simultaneously. In mod_jk.log: [jk_ajp13_worker.c (381)]: Error ajp13_process_callback - write failed I've also checked tomcat.log and the following error appears: Ctx( /WebApplication ): Exception in: R( /WebApplication + /servlet/ServletObj + null) - java.lang.OutOfMemoryError no stack trace available After this the system is slower than ever. I tried to restart Tomcat but the system continues to be very...very slow. I'd appreciate if some clues about this problem could be thrown at me :-) Thanx. Serrano. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mod_jk performance optimization Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 2 May 2002, M. Serrano wrote: Hi. I've got installed in my box Linux, Apache 1.3.19, JDK 1.3.1 and TC 3.3.1 working with ajp13. The following error appeard in my mod_jk.log after a bit of continuous utilisation: [jk_ajp13_worker.c (203)]: connection_tcp_get_message: Error - jk_tcp_socket_recvfull failed [jk_ajp13_worker.c (621)]: Error reading request From the line numbers, you may use an older version of jk, try updating from CVS head first ( the bug may be already fixed ) ( you can use either the 'frozen' jk from 3.3 or j-t-c ). The error message means from some reasons tomcat didn't sent back any content - so you may need to look in tomcat's lots as well. ( the 'reading request' means the request from tomcat to jk to send a chunk of data ) Costin After analysing the server's config files and reading some threads, I concluded that the problem might be resolved through a bit of extra re-configuration. Although the problem appearence was delayed, it still existed. I wonder if anyone out there could help me with this subject. I'm sending in attach some lines of httpd.conf, server.xml and mod_jk.conf Thanx a lot for your time. Serrano. ## ## httpd.conf -- Apache HTTP server configuration file ## # # Timeout: The number of seconds before receives and sends time out. # Timeout 300 # # KeepAlive: Whether or not to allow persistent connections (more than # one request per connection). Set to Off to deactivate. # KeepAlive On # # MaxKeepAliveRequests: The maximum number of requests to allow # during a persistent connection. Set to 0 to allow an unlimited amount. # We recommend you leave this number high, for maximum performance. # MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 # # KeepAliveTimeout: Number of seconds to wait for the next request from the # same client on the same connection. # KeepAliveTimeout 15 # # Server-pool size regulation. Rather than making you guess how many # server processes you need, Apache dynamically adapts to the load it # sees --- that is, it tries to maintain enough server processes to # handle the current load, plus a few spare servers to handle transient # load spikes (e.g., multiple simultaneous requests from a single # Netscape browser). # # It does this by periodically checking how many servers are waiting # for a request. If there are fewer than MinSpareServers, it creates # a new spare. If there are more than MaxSpareServers, some of the # spares die off. The default values are probably OK for most sites. # MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 # # Number of servers to start initially --- should be a reasonable ballpark # figure. # StartServers 8 # # Limit on total number of servers running, i.e., limit on the number # of clients who can simultaneously connect --- if this limit is ever # reached, clients will be LOCKED OUT, so it should NOT BE SET TOO LOW. # It is intended mainly as a brake to keep a runaway server from taking # the system with it as it spirals down... # MaxClients 150 # # MaxRequestsPerChild: the number of requests each child process is # allowed to process before the child dies. The child will exit so # as to avoid problems after prolonged use when Apache (and maybe the # libraries it uses) leak memory or other resources. On most systems, this # isn't really needed, but a few (such as Solaris) do have notable leaks # in the libraries
Re: mod_jk performance optimization
On Thu, 2 May 2002, M. Serrano wrote: Hi. I've got installed in my box Linux, Apache 1.3.19, JDK 1.3.1 and TC 3.3.1 working with ajp13. The following error appeard in my mod_jk.log after a bit of continuous utilisation: [jk_ajp13_worker.c (203)]: connection_tcp_get_message: Error - jk_tcp_socket_recvfull failed [jk_ajp13_worker.c (621)]: Error reading request From the line numbers, you may use an older version of jk, try updating from CVS head first ( the bug may be already fixed ) ( you can use either the 'frozen' jk from 3.3 or j-t-c ). The error message means from some reasons tomcat didn't sent back any content - so you may need to look in tomcat's lots as well. ( the 'reading request' means the request from tomcat to jk to send a chunk of data ) Costin After analysing the server's config files and reading some threads, I concluded that the problem might be resolved through a bit of extra re-configuration. Although the problem appearence was delayed, it still existed. I wonder if anyone out there could help me with this subject. I'm sending in attach some lines of httpd.conf, server.xml and mod_jk.conf Thanx a lot for your time. Serrano. ## ## httpd.conf -- Apache HTTP server configuration file ## # # Timeout: The number of seconds before receives and sends time out. # Timeout 300 # # KeepAlive: Whether or not to allow persistent connections (more than # one request per connection). Set to Off to deactivate. # KeepAlive On # # MaxKeepAliveRequests: The maximum number of requests to allow # during a persistent connection. Set to 0 to allow an unlimited amount. # We recommend you leave this number high, for maximum performance. # MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 # # KeepAliveTimeout: Number of seconds to wait for the next request from the # same client on the same connection. # KeepAliveTimeout 15 # # Server-pool size regulation. Rather than making you guess how many # server processes you need, Apache dynamically adapts to the load it # sees --- that is, it tries to maintain enough server processes to # handle the current load, plus a few spare servers to handle transient # load spikes (e.g., multiple simultaneous requests from a single # Netscape browser). # # It does this by periodically checking how many servers are waiting # for a request. If there are fewer than MinSpareServers, it creates # a new spare. If there are more than MaxSpareServers, some of the # spares die off. The default values are probably OK for most sites. # MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 # # Number of servers to start initially --- should be a reasonable ballpark # figure. # StartServers 8 # # Limit on total number of servers running, i.e., limit on the number # of clients who can simultaneously connect --- if this limit is ever # reached, clients will be LOCKED OUT, so it should NOT BE SET TOO LOW. # It is intended mainly as a brake to keep a runaway server from taking # the system with it as it spirals down... # MaxClients 150 # # MaxRequestsPerChild: the number of requests each child process is # allowed to process before the child dies. The child will exit so # as to avoid problems after prolonged use when Apache (and maybe the # libraries it uses) leak memory or other resources. On most systems, this # isn't really needed, but a few (such as Solaris) do have notable leaks # in the libraries. For these platforms, set to something like 1 # or so; a setting of 0 means unlimited. # # NOTE: This value does not include keepalive requests after the initial # request per connection. For example, if a child process handles # an initial request and 10 subsequent keptalive requests, it # would only count as 1 request towards this limit. # MaxRequestsPerChild 200 # # DocumentRoot: The directory out of which you will serve your # documents. By default, all requests are taken from this directory, but # symbolic links and aliases may be used to point to other locations. # DocumentRoot /usr/local/jakarta-tomcat-3.3.1/webapps/ROOT # This should be changed to whatever you set DocumentRoot to. # Directory /usr/local/jakarta-tomcat-3.3.1/webapps/ROOT # # This may also be None, All, or any combination of Indexes, # Includes, FollowSymLinks, ExecCGI, or MultiViews. # # Note that MultiViews must be named *explicitly* --- Options All # doesn't give it to you. # Options indexes includes followSymLinks # # This controls which options the .htaccess files in directories can # override. Can also be All, or any combination of Options, FileInfo, # AuthConfig, and Limit # AllowOverride None # # Controls who can get stuff from this server. # Order allow,deny Allow from all /Directory # Include TOMCAT Include /usr/local/jakarta-tomcat-3.3.1/conf/auto/mod_jk.conf-local - mod_jk.conf-local - ## Auto generated on
