Yes if memory serves me correctly that was the case.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Raj Janorkar <raj.janor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Ryan, > > Do you mean up to 1000 concurrent users on tomcat/shindig can perform really > well? > > If that is the case then i think i would be having only 500 to 700 > concurrent users at any given point. so i guess it will suit very well for > my application. > > Thank you > > Regards, > Raj > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I have seen Shindig perform well for 1000 or so users on a machine >> that is far inferior than the one you are using Raj. At the end of >> day I guess it all depends on the # of concurrent users you have, >> every machine has its limits, >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Raj Janorkar <raj.janor...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi Matt >> > >> > I am using shindig 2.5.1 ( the latest release ). >> > >> > My application is entirely build in php mysql except shindig so i need >> > to >> > use both apache for php and tomcat for shindig, and in order to run that >> > on >> > same domain i need to use ajp to frontend shindig. >> > >> > I got hifi server so really having 2000 thread i dont think an issue. >> > >> > I am just concern about the performance of shindig gadget rendering it >> > is >> > fast but was thinking and getting people opinion here to make it really >> > really fast if possible. >> > >> > Otherwise i am happy with how it is now. >> > >> > May be Ryan can share some info here. >> > >> > Thank you >> > >> > Regards, >> > Raj >> > >> > On Monday, September 29, 2014, Merrill, Matt <mmerr...@mitre.org> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> <javascript:;>> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> > >
