2016-09-22 17:13 GMT+02:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > 2016-09-14 20:43 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>: > > > > 2016-09-13 20:07 GMT+02:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I would like to back port these changes to Tomcat 8.5 if you do not > have > > > any concerns. > > > > > > -0.1. I think this is ok, but not certain yet. > > - Performance is ok for the "common" unencrypted scenario, but it could > go > > down if using SSL, for example [= if the need for direct buffers could be > > hurting - if it is, then there's a problem since SSL will be used almost > > all the time moving forwards]. > > I executed many combinations of performance scenarios - using direct > ByteBuffer/non direct ByteBuffer, > HTTP/HTTPS, sslImplementationName - > org.apache.tomcat.util.net.jsse.JSSEImplementation/org. > apache.tomcat.util.net.openssl.OpenSSLImplementation > And results with/without my changes are the same. > I'm testing with original Tomcat 9.0.0.M9 and Tomcat 9.0.0.M9 + only my > changes. > I'm testing with blocking and non blocking. > > Just for testing purposes I changed > org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer > to use direct ByteBuffer and then executed SSL scenarios and again the > results are the same. > No visible performance improvement/degradation. > > Do you have some scenarios in mind in which a performance degradation can > be experienced. > I can test them and take a deeper look. >
Ok, good, normally it's the best thing to test. If using OpenSSL, you should see better performance with direct buffers though, so maybe there's something "wrong" with the testing. If you plan more ByteBuffer use, then go ahead and I'll test it. > > > > - I didn't test again after the header processing refactoring (the old > code > > was there for speed back then in early 2000s, most likely it doesn't make > > any difference now but it could be verified as well). > > I executed many tests and didn't see any problems. > Yes, I had verified this one already :) Rémy
