-----------------------------
Please read the FAQ!
<http://java.apache.org/faq/>
-----------------------------
Can anyone confirm this? Honestly, this scares the hell out of me.
We're planning on using the IBM 1.1.8 JDK for Linux. In a perfect world,
we'd be deploying on Solaris, but unfortunately we're a startup company
and we just can't afford it as of yet.
-Tim
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Tim Reilly wrote:
>
> > The company I work for is in the late stages of re-architecting our entire
> > website using Apache JServ, RedHat Linux 6.0, and MySQL. The code is just
> > about finished (version 1.0 freezes in the two weeks), and we're trying to
> > spec the servers we will need for deployment. The problem is that I
> > really have no idea what class of machine is required.
>
> Be very very very cautious about even thinking of deploying any site that
> has a high load and significant Java code using Linux. This is not a
> slight to Linux, but simply due to the immaturity and poor performance of
> JVMs on Linux.
>
> The JVMs that are out there either have horrible performance or are
> unstable under load. The blackdown 1.1 one is pretty stable using green
> threads, but is horribly slow for IO due to green threads, and IO is about
> all most server side java code does.
>
> The current blackdown 1.2 using native threads (with or without jit) is
> quite unstable under high load. Some bits of code will crash it fairly
> reliably, other times it just hangs or SEGVs under heavy load.
>
> IBM's JVM is so-so in terms of performance, but may have problems under
> load due to the immaturity of Linux threads. Until recently, there were
> also problems that made it not work right with jserv due to it improperly
> reporting that there was no more data to be read on a socket instead of
> blocking.
>
> In my experience, the price/performance for a sparc box running Solaris is
> actually _better_ than that on Linux (even if the box is 5x as expensive),
> and a whole lot more reliable, since the JVMs are so much better.
>
> You also need to be very careful about what queries you give to mysql. It
> does not (at least did not) handle concurrent queries; ie. it finishes one
> before starting the next, so a single expensive query can kill the whole
> site for some time, make things backup, etc. As long as everything is an
> easy select that can be done via indexes, things are reasonable but it
> requires careful design of accesses and updates.
>
> Now, my definition of "high traffic" may or may not be more than your
> definition. But the above is based on my experience trying to deploy a
> fairly high traffic site running a JVM on Linux.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
