2016-09-22 18:29 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>:
> 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
> > go
> > > down if using SSL, for example [= if the need for direct buffers
> > > hurting - if it is, then there's a problem since SSL will be used
> > > 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
> > 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.
My idea was to introduce the changes step by step,
because of this I wanted to backport the current changes to Tomcat 8.5 and
receive a feedback.
But if you propose to introduce all ByteBuffer related changes together,
I'm OK and can commit the next changes.
I saw several places where switch to ByteBuffer can be done and I'm going
to finish and commit 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
> > > 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 :)
I really appreciate your reviews and testing.