Thanks Chris I will take a look at it. I am just trying to figure out what is the fastest was to handle my app. I was shooting for less than 1msec at Tomcat which I not have done. Now I want to get to 100 microseconds. Years ago from an logical architecture standpoint It was: 1. Apache web server - JBoss, then 2. Apache - Tomcat - JBoss 3. APR/Tomcat - JBoss.
Then I drilled down into and refactored some of my code then finally looked at different types of web services and how fast and maybe why they might be slow. I currently am using 200MB xmx, xms, -server, NUMA, and set my new generation to be large since my objects are short lived. I do not remember my other settings. I am beginning to think simpler is better for settings since at 1msec or less any time spent by the processor might be wasted time. I am very curious how you got 50K requests per second. I can get 1K per second on my AMD 6 core system. What was your client setup? I ran my client on the same server as my APR/Tomcat-JBoss and I am setting up the client on a laptop so I am not sharing resources. For the client I am using ApacheHttp class running in Eclipse and launch each http request in a different thread. I ended up configuring Tomcat for 400 connections which made a big difference. I still have alot more testing/tuning to do and I hope to get to it over the next couple of evenings. -Tony ----- Original Message ---- From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org> Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 1:42:37 PM Subject: Re: IIS7/isapi/tomcat performance -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tony, On 3/1/2011 2:49 PM, Tony Anecito wrote: > I understand it is from the core AWS but the important thing for me was to > eliminate AJP because in a AWS standalone I had used to communicate AJP. > When I enabled ARP I did not have to do anything with AJP. > > So does ARP communicate with the servlet conatiner in a more efficiant manner? (Presuming s/ARP/APR/g) APR is just a connector strategy, like the BIO or NIO connectors. There are APR connectors for both HTTP and AJP. If you're saying that you switched from BIO/AJP to APR/HTTP, I'm not surprised you experienced a performance improvement: you're eliminated the web server altogether. If instead you are still using a web server out front and using HTTP instead of AJP to communicate with the back-end, I'd be interested in your configuration, environment, and observed performance gain. Generally speaking, use of AJP is slightly faster than proxied HTTP but there are certainly some trade-offs (like lack of encrypted communication support for AJP). APR handles connections differently than the Default BIO connector. See http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/config/http.html#Connector%20Comparison for notes about the relative capabilities of the connectors (for HTTP). There is no NIO connector for AJP, but I would imagine that the comparison between the other two HTTP connectors is applicable to the AJP connectors as well. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1tWj0ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBNLwCgmpEjzeX8lxu2+ac7yxP5BV95 9eYAn0SkImgJxKoqg15rqgk0pCBs2e6L =y6g9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
