DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35054.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35054.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Well it should be the final goal.
A way to add a worker dynamically and also if possible an URI to worker.
As such we could have a 24/24 7/7 dynamically manageable tomcat farm
routeur (if we see the HTTP server as such)
2005/5/24, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35055.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35056.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35056.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35054.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi,
I have been using tomcat to host my RTSP servlet, and I have written my own
connector to accept RTSP commands, the only problem is, a client which I am
writing the RTSP server for needs to receive a TCP ACK for the request it
has sent. I have used 'Etherreal' to see what is going on, and it
remm2005/05/25 03:39:28
Modified:http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11AprProtocol.java
Log:
- Add config of firstReadTimeout.
Revision ChangesPath
1.6 +9 -0
remm2005/05/25 05:45:38
Modified:http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11AprProcessor.java InternalAprInputBuffer.java
Log:
- If the thread count gets too high, don't do any blocking read to start off
the request if no data is available, and
Hi,
The results of the AB benchmark configured with 20 concurrent clients are
posted below,
If somebody is interested in more configurations (from 20 to 1 concurrent
clients)
they are available at http://www.bsc.es/edragon/pdf/TestAb.tgz
BTW, there is also available a comparison between
Am I reading the results correctly?
tomcat 5.5.9 - 16,331.81/sec
hybrid - 7,085.54/sec
that means the hybrid connector is 2x slower. If those results are
accurate, I would say the APR connector is much better choice.
peter lin
On 5/25/05, Vicenc Beltran Querol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35061.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Peter Lin wrote:
Am I reading the results correctly?
tomcat 5.5.9 - 16,331.81/sec
hybrid - 7,085.54/sec
that means the hybrid connector is 2x slower. If those results are
accurate, I would say the APR connector is much better choice.
It's more complex than that.
The APR connector has a
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35063.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35063.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35064.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11563.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11563.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
billbarker2005/05/20 20:02:25
Modified:catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/connector
Connector.java Response.java
Log:
Reverting previous patch in favor of the better one submitted by JFC
No idea why but suddenly I'm getting
Dear eBay member,
Were sorry. We are not able to process your recent reply to our email. We are
the processor for the email surveys for eBay and are not directly linked to the
eBay customer service center.
Please respond through the survey link imbedded in the original email you
received
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11563.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi,
The APR connector has a trick to optimize pipelining (where a client
would do many requests on a single connection, but with a small delay
between requests - typically, it would happen when getting lots of
images from a website).
What's the trick? Are you trying to do blocking read
Mladen Turk wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
billbarker2005/05/20 20:02:25
Modified:catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/connector
Connector.java Response.java
Log:
Reverting previous patch in favor of the better one submitted by JFC
No idea why but
Vicenc Beltran Querol wrote:
It's great to read your opinions... ;)
Let's cut down on the broken record effect then: -1 for your code,
it's not a clean implementation ;) (I end up with a smiley, since you
did as well)
Rémy
On 5/25/05, Vicenc Beltran Querol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm absolutely disconcerted. In your previous answeryou agreed that the
AB test is not good for comparing two different architectural
approaches. And you still wanna compare the performance of the hybrid
architecture using it.
Peter Lin wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. The reason for using apache
AB for small files under 2K is that JMeter is unable to max out the
server with tiny files. You can see the original number I produced
here http://people.apache.org/~woolfel/tc_results.html.
Since the bulk of
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
INFO: Pausing Coyote HTTP/1.1 on http-8080
May 25, 2005 4:46:53 PM
org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPool$ControlRunnable run
SEVERE: Caught exception (java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
org.apache.jk.core.MsgContext.getRequest()Ljava/lang/Object;)
I took a look at the AB and Rubis numbers. Honestly I don't
understand the rubis graphs. From the AB results, it looks like the
connect, processing and wait times are lower for the hybrid. That's a
good achievement and congrats to you on that.
I'm not convinced of the benefit of the hybrid
Remy Maucherat wrote:
In my mind, the argument for tomcat supporting 1000 concurrent
connections for an extended period of time isn't valid from my
experience.
- all the other APR features which are really useful and not provided by
the core Java platform
Actually I just read a perfect
- Original Message -
From: Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit:
jakarta-tomcat-catalina/catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/connector
Connector.java Response.java
Bill Barker wrote:
Doing a clean build of j-t-c/jk/java should fix it. MsgContext isn't
referenced outside of there.
I'm doing 'ant checkout ant'.
This is actually changed as part of Mark's Form-auth POST-replay, not
the Connector/Response buffering.
OK. Will try the clean build.
Is this still true if we were to define extra workers that are marked as
disabled at startup? Could we then point them to any new servers as they
are added and enable them without a restart? I know it's not very clean,
but would it work?
We'd *really* like to find a way around having to force
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35063.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Actually I just read a perfect use case scenario request for
the new APR connector on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With only couple of threads all the 1000 connections could be handled
without having 1000 threads.
Actually, it seems a lot more a case of using the servlet API in a way
Hi Peter,
I took a look at the AB and Rubis numbers. Honestly I don't
understand the rubis graphs.
You can find an explanation about the httperf numbers on the man page
of Httperf, or looking at
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/David_Mosberger/httperf.html.
Rubis is the dynamic application
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this still true if we were to define extra workers that are marked as
disabled at startup? Could we then point them to any new servers as they
are added and enable them without a restart? I know it's not very clean,
but would it work?
It will work if you know
Hi,
By the way, this is my last post about this topic. I've perfectly
understood Remy's messages (in the list and in my personal address),
so I will not waste your time anymore.
It was far from a waste of time. Please don't hesitate to contribute again
in performance tuning or other areas.
On 5/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this still true if we were to define extra workers that are marked as
disabled at startup? Could we then point them to any new servers as they
are added and enable them without a restart? I know it's not very clean,
but would it work?
We'd
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35079.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
40 matches
Mail list logo
