[ a little late here, but hey.. ]
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, David Rees wrote:
| On Fri, December 12, 2003 at 2:12 pm, Adam Fisk wrote:
|
| I'd be happy to send my data to the group if people are interested.
| Aside from memory, I was surprised to find that the effect on CPU was
| negligible (not
be (for a NIO-able
servlet)?
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
-Original Message-
From: Endre Stølsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:48 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: 5.next + 4.1.x future
[ a little late here, but hey.. ]
On Fri, 12
Costin Manolache wrote:
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO it was
hopeless to try and
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I'm interested in the following enhancements to 5.0.x in the future (=
in january or later):
- refactoring of the save to XML feature (that's been requested; I don't
know if I'll use that to be able to use the admin webapp under JBoss,
though); likely the default impl will
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
+1
I would also like to explore, as a separate module, a connector that
uses NIO to see what kind of performance we can have. I have no
intention of replacing the current connector, and probably I will
waste my time trying to have the same
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO it was
hopeless to try and write a scalable and
Costin Manolache wrote:
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Don't forget that servlets ( which is the main job of tomcat ) use
blocking input/output streams.
NIO select ( which is what most people see first in NIO ) is not going
to help in this. Select is extremely powerfull - but it requires a
certain
David Rees wrote:
On Fri, December 12, 2003 at 2:12 pm, Adam Fisk wrote:
I'd be happy to send my data to the group if people are interested.
Aside from memory, I was surprised to find that the effect on CPU was
negligible (not much of a benefit from no context-switching between
threads) -- CPU
Hi,
I see no reason to create a new branch, which is not what happened with
previous releases, where branches were created sometimes even before the
stable release (4.1.x got forked for 4.0 final, and 5.0.x was forked for
4.1.7). Reasons for no branching:
- Tomcat is rather modular
- Behavior
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
I see no reason to create a new branch, which is not what happened
with previous releases, where branches were created sometimes even
before the stable release (4.1.x got forked for 4.0 final, and 5.0.x
was forked for 4.1.7). Reasons for no branching:
- Tomcat is
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
+1
I would also like to explore, as a separate module, a connector that
uses NIO to see what kind of performance we can have. I have no
intention of replacing the current connector, and probably I will waste
my time trying to have the same performance as the current
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO it was
hopeless to try and write a scalable and fast tcp server application
in
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO it was
hopeless to try and write a scalable and fast
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO it was
hopeless to try and
Just to chime in on the NIO issue, I agree that it's not immediately
obvious what the performance benefits are. Perhaps more importantly,
though, the code changes to switch Tomcat (or any other good-size app)
to NIO are tremendous -- basically a rewrite of the hard parts.
That said, I've done
Adam Fisk wrote:
Just to chime in on the NIO issue, I agree that it's not immediately
obvious what the performance benefits are. Perhaps more importantly,
though, the code changes to switch Tomcat (or any other good-size app)
to NIO are tremendous -- basically a rewrite of the hard parts.
Here's my excel spreadsheet. All of these numbers are taken from the
Windows Task Manager. This is somewhat misleading in that the memory
numbers don't properly reflect garbage collection, but it's informative
nevertheless.
The Sends (ms) column reflects the timeout between client sends. I
I should also mention that I ran these tests on an Athlon 2200 with
512MB RAM.
-Adam
Adam Fisk wrote:
Here's my excel spreadsheet. All of these numbers are taken from the
Windows Task Manager. This is somewhat misleading in that the memory
numbers don't properly reflect garbage collection,
On Fri, December 12, 2003 at 2:12 pm, Adam Fisk wrote:
I'd be happy to send my data to the group if people are interested.
Aside from memory, I was surprised to find that the effect on CPU was
negligible (not much of a benefit from no context-switching between
threads) -- CPU was virtually
List
Subject: Re: 5.next + 4.1.x future
Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My opinion is that NIO is going to be really useless.
Eh, hello!? Oh, okay if it's not important that Tomcat scale and
perform well it may be useless. But, really, before NIO
20 matches
Mail list logo
