Call my results suspect if you will, I was very surpised myself as the data started to come back, showing that mod_proxy was performing better than mod_jk. I couldn't believe it at first, so each load test scenario was repeated...same results each time. And one detail that I overlooked in my last post was that mod_rewrite was running under both scenarios...whether mod_jk or mod_proxy was being used, mod_rewrite was serving up all static files. So mod_jk wasn't even having to deal with static files also...strictly dynamic content only.
For each test, I re-imported our base test schema. Apache was the same installation, JBoss was the same installation. I simply added different config directories for the different jsp/servlet containers I tested with and either setup Apache to use mod_jk or mod_proxy or mod_caucho. In all tests involving mod_jk versus mod_proxy, mod_proxy performed better...period. I am only relaying the results that I have put together on an application that I am working on (which I indicated earlier makes heavy use of Struts,tags,etc.) Granted you mileage may vary...but I disagree that my results can be casually dismissed as suspect. Especially when another user agrees that he has observed the same behavior. Thank you for your time, Mike ----- Original Message ----- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:29:12 +0100 From: Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Mort Bay Consulting To: Larry Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that benchmarking that shows mod_proxy as faster than mod_jk is highly suspect. While mod_jk does faff about a lot - changing strings into single bytes and then back again, mod_proxy does not use persistent connectons and must reestablish a TCP/IP connection for each request. I would only expect mod_proxy to be faster if the load presented was HTTP/1.0 or not kept-alive HTTP/1.1 If mod_proxy does now support HTTP/1.1 persistent connections, then that is very good news as it is a much better way to forward requests (use the protocol rather than invent a new one!). cheers J. Michael Savage Datastream Development <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (800) 955-6775 x7646 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
