date:20100325

Re: Help required for SMAP....

2010-03-25 Thread TWönlìnè

Thanks for the reply, I guessed that also, but i think there are some
problems in this approach.

If you look at JSP line from 3 to 13 you'll find this,

3. %
4. %@ page import=java.util.* %
5. %@ page import=java.text.* %
6. !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd;
7. html
8. head
9. meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
10. titleInsert title here/title
11. /head
12. body
13. %

on JAVA file,

55. out.write(\r\n\r\n\n!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
Transitional//EN\
\http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd\;\nhtml\nhead\nmeta
http-equiv=\Content-Type\ content=\text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1\\ntitleInsert title
here/title\n/head\nbody\n);

As you can see on the JAVA line the imports are not present which exist in
JSP lines 4 and 5
You can find those imports in, JAVA file on the following lines.

6. import java.util.*;
7. import java.text.*;

so the correct mapping should be

6,6:55,0
and
3,2:6,1

That's the issue,
Is this a bug in TOMCAT SMAP feature ?

I'm so confused

btw is there a easier way to capture code line numbers other than using a
.BAT file or creating a program for it

Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance

2010-03-25 Thread Jason Brittain

Very entertaining reading! Thanks Chris and Mark for re-benchmarking,
explaining, and giving your opinions on the results. I'm not entirely sure
how I missed Chris' benchmark results email, almost exactly one year ago
now. Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing
any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how
to interpret the numbers. It would be great to get more information about
how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server
hardware was used.

I tried to write my benchmark such that it is fully documented and
repeatable all the way down to the configuration used on both the client and
the server, etc. I also wanted to be completely clear and up front about
the specific scenarios I was benchmarking -- there are many more that I
wasn't -- so I wrote the explanations into the text as well. The results
are, of course, only about the kinds of requests we're benchmarking, and
also about the configuration(s) used. I did try to think up and benchmark
the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can
say their webapp isn't like that. :) Plus, I tried to write my benchmark
to both inspire others to conduct and publish more benchmarks, and also to
show a detailed example of one that others could modify and re-use. I was
hoping to see more published benchmarks by now, but each one I find is
really entertaining.

I'm happy to see that Chris' independent benchmark numbers help to show that
it is indeed a myth that Tomcat needs HTTPD in front of it in order to get
good performance serving static files. And, it's great to see benchmark
results for file sizes that I wasn't able to benchmark.

Mark: I like your text about some of the other reasons people want to use
HTTPD -- it is spot on, and in fact there are so many modules out there for
it, there are countless logical reasons to use it. Thanks for the
additional analysis. It helps.

61 matches

Mail list logo