Could you share the code ?
Dave Johnston
On 3 Jul 2013, at 19:00, Ke Ren k...@spaceapegames.com wrote:
Hi,
We are using httpcomponents httpclient 4.2.2 and doing loadtest with
client. when we increased concurrent requests to 3000 per second, we found
it took near half of cpu usage on aws
Thanks Oleg. 4.2 benchmark code is super useful. I ran this code there is
no big difference between 4.3 and 4.2. I found STALE_CONNECTION_CHECK is
false in benchmark test. If it's on it will drop Requests per second from
17k to 14k.
I plugin our http client wrapper on top of apache http client in
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 11:19 +0100, Ke Ren wrote:
Thanks Oleg. 4.2 benchmark code is super useful. I ran this code there is
no big difference between 4.3 and 4.2. I found STALE_CONNECTION_CHECK is
false in benchmark test. If it's on it will drop Requests per second from
17k to 14k.
Yes, this
I will try keepAlive off with stale check off. we have the same http client
usage like the one in benchmark code. that is only one client with pool
manager shared by all requests.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 11:19 +0100, Ke
I still get NoHttpResponseException after I turned off keepAlive and stale
check. Do you mean closing connection every time after a request? I feel it
is more expensive. Besides, the second call was sent now immediately after
the first call was replied in milliseconds. I can't see any long idle in
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 12:22 +0100, Ke Ren wrote:
I still get NoHttpResponseException after I turned off keepAlive and stale
check. Do you mean closing connection every time after a request?
Absolutely not. In some cases proactive eviction of idle connections
from the connection pool makes stale
ok, I got it. this stale check is fixed by adding retry if connection is
closed by server after response is sent
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 12:22 +0100, Ke Ren wrote:
I still get NoHttpResponseException after I turned off
Hi,
We are using httpcomponents httpclient 4.2.2 and doing loadtest with
client. when we increased concurrent requests to 3000 per second, we found
it took near half of cpu usage on aws ec m3.xlarge instance. We have config
as the following:
keepAlive is enabled. socket buffer size is 8 * 1024.
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:59 +0100, Ke Ren wrote:
Hi,
We are using httpcomponents httpclient 4.2.2 and doing loadtest with
client. when we increased concurrent requests to 3000 per second, we found
it took near half of cpu usage on aws ec m3.xlarge instance. We have config
as the following:
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 15:48 -0800, Ken Krugler wrote:
Hi Oleg,
[snip]
Ken,
You might want to have a look at the lest code in SVN trunk (to be
released as 4.3). Several classes such as the scheme registry that
previously had to be synchronized in order to ensure thread safety have
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for the responses. I've filed a Bixo issue to try using the new minimal
version of HttpClient, and also the unlimited connection manager.
I'll try to test using an existing crawl workflow that hits the top-level pages
for 60K domains, though that's not exactly the same as a
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 15:56 -0800, Ken Krugler wrote:
On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:31pm, vigna wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013, at 3:10 PM, Ken Krugler kkrugler_li...@transpac.com wrote:
So on a large box (e.g. 24 more powerful cores) I could see using upward
of 10K threads being the
optimal number.
Hi Oleg,
[snip]
Ken,
You might want to have a look at the lest code in SVN trunk (to be
released as 4.3). Several classes such as the scheme registry that
previously had to be synchronized in order to ensure thread safety have
been replaced with immutable equivalents. There is also now a
Olegk, thanks for you quick reply.
Maybe my question is not clear, and I can't say that httpclient's performance
is slow.
HttpClient is very good, I think there maybe some configurations I didn't set
properly, So I want to ask for some help.
In my log:
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 20:26 +0800, Stephen wrote:
Olegk, thanks for you quick reply.
Maybe my question is not clear, and I can't say that httpclient's performance
is slow.
HttpClient is very good, I think there maybe some configurations I didn't set
properly, So I want to ask for some
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:ol...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:54 PM
To: HttpClient User Discussion
Subject: Re: httpclient performance
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 02:04 -0400, Brooks, Kenneth S wrote:
Oleg,
We’re replacing a t3 solution with one
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 10:22 -0400, Brooks, Kenneth S wrote:
...
What in the world am I missing?
Is that just to be expected.. or am I doing something wrong?
What further information do you need from me?
A context log of the HTTP session would be most useful.
[[-KenBrooks-]]
There is no need to turn on full wire logging, which is very noisy and
expensive. Only context logging should be enough.
http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-4.0.1/logging.html
...
[[-KenBrooks-]]
Understood.. yeah I would turn it on with only context logging.. I was just
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 02:04 -0400, Brooks, Kenneth S wrote:
Oleg,
We’re replacing a t3 solution with one that is similar to
SpringRemoting.. Serializing POJOs over http.
I’ve been able to optimize the CPU utilization and memory usage very
well.. We’re running in a smaller memory
.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/HttpClient-performance-tp22838346p23154949.html
Sent from the HttpClient-User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpclient-users-unsubscr
or not.
I think that the proper course would be to optimistically keep it alive.
Surely if there is no response, then it's likely that the server or
connection is broken, so it would be better to drop the connection?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/HttpClient
a connection alive
whenever possible.
if (response != null !connStrategy.keepAlive(response, context)) {
conn.close();
}
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/HttpClient-performance-tp22838346p23141362.html
Sent from the HttpClient-User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:54:56AM +0200, Gruntz,Dominik wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a method which requests a resource several times from on a servlet
server (on localhost).
It seems to me that the version using HttpClient is abouot a factor of 20-30
slower than the
version based on Sun's
, like accidentally leaving logging on.
Oleg
Thanks for any further advice.
Best wishes
Dominik
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:ol...@apache.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 2. April 2009 09:50
To: HttpClient User Discussion
Subject: Re: HttpClient performance
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:ol...@apache.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 2. April 2009 09:50
To: HttpClient User Discussion
Subject: Re: HttpClient performance
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:54:56AM +0200, Gruntz,Dominik wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a method which requests
Thank you very much! This sample code is very helpful!!!
The problem with my code was the missing property
HttpConnectionParams.STALE_CONNECTION_CHECK
which has to be set to false.
Thanks again,
Dominik
-
To
Gruntz,Dominik wrote:
Thank you very much! This sample code is very helpful!!!
The problem with my code was the missing property
HttpConnectionParams.STALE_CONNECTION_CHECK
which has to be set to false.
Actually I should have thought of that. The stale connection check tends
to be a
Hi,
I wrote a method which requests a resource several times from on a servlet
server (on localhost).
It seems to me that the version using HttpClient is abouot a factor of 20-30
slower than the
version based on Sun's HttpURLConnection. I cannot believe these figures and
ask you, where
I
28 matches
Mail list logo
