apache will also be faster for serving static pages, thats what apache is
good at. Tomcat CPU will depend on the task its doing and whats spare CPU is
avaliable. I dont think there is a limit in java or tomcat
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Bezdicek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Well, there is a possible explanation :-)
The static interceptor ( which serves static files ) was never tuned or
optimized. It probably does multiple accesses to disk, while in
Apache there are a number of low-level optimizations, caching, etc.
I am not very interested in spending time tuning
Hi,
See below.
Roy
snip
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Bezdicek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 March 2001 09:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Just another Benchmark
Hi,
we tried the apachebench on our solaris system, to check out
differences between architectures
on 3/2/01 11:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For "real" production servers I hope you'll use Apache, and for embeding
tomcat in apps or development you don't need 500 requests per seconde.
What if we need 500 requests per second for non-static files? :-)
-jon
on 3/2/01 11:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For "real" production servers I hope you'll use Apache, and for embeding
tomcat in apps or development you don't need 500 requests per seconde.
What if we need 500 requests per second for non-static files? :-)
You got
on 3/3/01 6:55 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 3/2/01 11:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For "real" production servers I hope you'll use Apache, and for embeding
tomcat in apps or development you don't need 500 requests per seconde.
What if we need
what platform/os? i believe your previous claims have been on NT, is this
also for unix now as well?
I've never tried on NT - and it would be pretty difficult anyway
( to get NT on my computer :-)
I'm using Linux/JDK1.3.
Again, I'm talking about overhead - i.e. the time spent in
tomcat (
