Hi Raj,

Just curious, what version of shindig are you using?

I ask because for our organization, when we upgraded from Shindig 2.0 to
Shindig 2.5 we were using 350 maxThreads on the HTTP connector and it
created a severe bottleneck of some sort. However, for shindig 2.0 that
same setting worked very well.  The fact that you¹re using 2000 makes me
think we could be wayyyyy low based on the newer versions of shindig.

I also know that before I came on my organization¹s shindig
implementation, a decision was made to NOT front Shindig with apache
through AJP.  Apparently, our older implementation (based on Shindig 2.0
and earlier) got bottlenecked and wasn¹t performing up to snuff.  Instead,
we have our shindig calls go directly to tomcat.  I¹m not sure if that¹s
still needed based on newer shindig versions, but something to think about
as well if performance is an issue for you.

-Matt

On 9/28/14, 7:23 PM, "Raj Janorkar" <raj.janor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Team,
>
>I have currently installed shindig on one my site below.
>
>http://portaltab.com/shindig/gadgets/ifr?url=http://www.labpixies.com/camp
>aigns/todo/todo.xml
>
>
>I am using apache (php) to serve all other pages, and Tomcat only for
>shindig to serve gadgets. Using AJP13 (mod_jk) to work with http and
>tomcat
>server.
>
>I would like to know from experts that what is the best configuration for
>Tomcat to *perform fast *and *render gadgets fast.*
>
>Below are some details about system/application
>
>
>   - Once i implement it i may have 500 to 700 concurrent users using my
>   site. around 40000 to 80000 users unique visit per day.
>   - Server - Intel E5 - 2650V2 processor (32 cores)
>   - Server Ram - 130GB Ram
>   - SSD Drives on server
>   - Tomcat Setup - Max Threads - 2000, min spare threads - 150,
>connection
>   timeout - 60sec
>
>Taking under consideration of my requirements and what i have if anyone
>let
>me know what is the optimized configuration for shindig/tomcat which will
>make it really really fast. That would be great.
>
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>Regards,
>Raj

Reply via email to