Re: more benchmark results
I run FC3, FC2, RH9 and soon will have Debain install going, I would be happy to help or whatever. From: "Sessoms, Mack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: more benchmark results Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:28:52 -0500 i've got 5.5.4 w/jvm 1.5.0-b64 on fc3 (2.6.9-1.667,i386). unfortunately, the hardware is a desktop unit 760 MB ram, ide drive, 2.6 P4 (512 cache). let me know if i should give it a try. Peter Lin wrote: any tomcat user out there have Redhat FC3 installed and want to help run some tests? I will post the jmeter test plans this weekend. it would make remy really happy :) peter And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to that distro when they release hoary). Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close of the concurrency used by your client) -- x Rémy Maucherat Developer & Consultant JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL x - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
for those who want to look at the test plans or assist, I've posted the jmeter test plans http://cvs.apache.org/~woolfel/testplans.zip peter On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:28:52 -0500, Sessoms, Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i've got 5.5.4 w/jvm 1.5.0-b64 on fc3 (2.6.9-1.667,i386). > unfortunately, the hardware is a desktop unit 760 MB ram, ide drive, 2.6 > P4 (512 cache). let me know if i should give it a try. > > Peter Lin wrote: > > >any tomcat user out there have Redhat FC3 installed and want to help > >run some tests? I will post the jmeter test plans this weekend. > > > >it would make remy really happy :) > > > >peter > > > > > > > > > >>And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's > >>a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL > >>backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to > >>that distro when they release hoary). > >> > >>Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread > >>pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector > >>element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also > >>if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as > >>well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close > >>of the concurrency used by your client) > >> > >>-- > >>x > >>Rémy Maucherat > >>Developer & Consultant > >>JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL > >>x > >> > >> > >> > > > >- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
Sure, it can't hurt to try it out. Even if the specs are different, the data point is a good baseline comparison. I'll post the test plans shortly to my apache directory. peter On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:28:52 -0500, Sessoms, Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i've got 5.5.4 w/jvm 1.5.0-b64 on fc3 (2.6.9-1.667,i386). > unfortunately, the hardware is a desktop unit 760 MB ram, ide drive, 2.6 > P4 (512 cache). let me know if i should give it a try. > > Peter Lin wrote: > > >any tomcat user out there have Redhat FC3 installed and want to help > >run some tests? I will post the jmeter test plans this weekend. > > > >it would make remy really happy :) > > > >peter > > > > > > > > > >>And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's > >>a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL > >>backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to > >>that distro when they release hoary). > >> > >>Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread > >>pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector > >>element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also > >>if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as > >>well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close > >>of the concurrency used by your client) > >> > >>-- > >>x > >>Rémy Maucherat > >>Developer & Consultant > >>JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL > >>x > >> > >> > >> > > > >- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
i've got 5.5.4 w/jvm 1.5.0-b64 on fc3 (2.6.9-1.667,i386). unfortunately, the hardware is a desktop unit 760 MB ram, ide drive, 2.6 P4 (512 cache). let me know if i should give it a try. Peter Lin wrote: any tomcat user out there have Redhat FC3 installed and want to help run some tests? I will post the jmeter test plans this weekend. it would make remy really happy :) peter And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to that distro when they release hoary). Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close of the concurrency used by your client) -- x Rémy Maucherat Developer & Consultant JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL x - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:07:37 -0500, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what a concept Schnapps over speed. Wonder what would happen if > someone made a redbull + Schnapps + speed cocktail 8-) Use it to chase the diet pills and nodoz, and you may never sleep again. :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
what a concept Schnapps over speed. Wonder what would happen if someone made a redbull + Schnapps + speed cocktail 8-) that wouldn't kill you, really. I'll stop the jokes there. peter On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Lin wrote: > > > > If I have time, I also plan to compare httpd 1.3. All I need now is > > some speed so I can go without sleep :) > > > > In my country we are using the thing called 'Rakija' for that. > It has 45% of alcohol, but has some strange side-effects. > Someone are even stating that it can make you drunk !? > > So, I suggest Rakija > (or as my German friends are wrongly calling it Schnapps) > over speed :). > > Mladen. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
Peter Lin wrote: If I have time, I also plan to compare httpd 1.3. All I need now is some speed so I can go without sleep :) In my country we are using the thing called 'Rakija' for that. It has 45% of alcohol, but has some strange side-effects. Someone are even stating that it can make you drunk !? So, I suggest Rakija (or as my German friends are wrongly calling it Schnapps) over speed :). Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
yeah, I've d/l 2.0.52 and plan on running a test. Graham O'Regan is also going to run the tests again Squid for comparison too. If I have time, I also plan to compare httpd 1.3. All I need now is some speed so I can go without sleep :) peter On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:40:16 +0100, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Lin wrote: > > Yup, I plan to try jdk5 with TC5.5.4 per Remy's request. > > > > Cool, but can you compare the results with Apache2.0.52 > when serving the same static content files on the same > hardware? > > That would be very interesting thought. Even more then > bare statistical data you've presented. > > Regards, > Mladen > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
any tomcat user out there have Redhat FC3 installed and want to help run some tests? I will post the jmeter test plans this weekend. it would make remy really happy :) peter > And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's > a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL > backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to > that distro when they release hoary). > > Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread > pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector > element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also > if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as > well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close > of the concurrency used by your client) > > -- > x > Rémy Maucherat > Developer & Consultant > JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL > x > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
Peter Lin wrote: Yup, I plan to try jdk5 with TC5.5.4 per Remy's request. Cool, but can you compare the results with Apache2.0.52 when serving the same static content files on the same hardware? That would be very interesting thought. Even more then bare statistical data you've presented. Regards, Mladen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:11:11 -0500, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Per Remy's request, I ran some more tests last night with larger > number of threads. the configuration of the test plan is as follows > > 1K png: 10, 50, 100, 150 threads > 10K png: 10, 50, 100, 150 threads > > each thread as was to 1000 iterations. > ramp up times: 1, 5, 10, 20 seconds > > Server: > Redhat fedora Core1 > AMD 2ghz > 1Gb RAM > tomcat 5.0.19 > Sun jdk1.4.2_03 > > Client: > gateway 450 laptop > 1.4ghz centrino > 1Gb RAM > jmeter nightly build > sun jdk1.4.2 > > I plan to re-run these tests with the latest 5.0.x release this > weekend and per Remy's request I will also test 5.5.4 with jdk5 for > comparison. And no FC 3 ? ;) I think it would run fine on your computer, and it's a higher quality distribution overall (it doesn't have the stupid NPTL backport that FC 1 has). Or you could try Ubuntu (I plan to switch to that distro when they release hoary). Anyway, I'd be interested if you tried stressing a little the thread pool I added in 5.5 (strategy="ms" threadPriority="7" on the Connector element) to see if it gives a difference in the error rate (and also if it's not completely broken). You may want to increase maxThreads as well for your tests (it's 150 by default, which is dangerously close of the concurrency used by your client) -- x Rémy Maucherat Developer & Consultant JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL x - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
Yup, I plan to try jdk5 with TC5.5.4 per Remy's request. once I get that out of the way, I plan to work on the enhancements to the status servlet. I took a quick look at apr-java, looks cool. No comments yet, but I will post them to tomcat-dev when I do :) peter On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:30:38 +0100, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Lin wrote: > > Per Remy's request, I ran some more tests last night with larger > > number of threads. the configuration of the test plan is as follows > > > > What would be nice (since you have infrastructure set up) > is to compare the results with Apache2. > Last time i did it there was only 10% difference when > serving static content. > > Also can you try the Java5? > > Regards, > Mladen. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more benchmark results
Peter Lin wrote: Per Remy's request, I ran some more tests last night with larger number of threads. the configuration of the test plan is as follows What would be nice (since you have infrastructure set up) is to compare the results with Apache2. Last time i did it there was only 10% difference when serving static content. Also can you try the Java5? Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
more benchmark results
Per Remy's request, I ran some more tests last night with larger number of threads. the configuration of the test plan is as follows 1K png: 10, 50, 100, 150 threads 10K png: 10, 50, 100, 150 threads each thread as was to 1000 iterations. ramp up times: 1, 5, 10, 20 seconds Server: Redhat fedora Core1 AMD 2ghz 1Gb RAM tomcat 5.0.19 Sun jdk1.4.2_03 Client: gateway 450 laptop 1.4ghz centrino 1Gb RAM jmeter nightly build sun jdk1.4.2 I plan to re-run these tests with the latest 5.0.x release this weekend and per Remy's request I will also test 5.5.4 with jdk5 for comparison. peter 1K --- protocol | samples | average | median | 90% line | min | max | error% | throughput | Kb/sec --- HTTP Request1 2.8969 0 10 0 571 0.00% 1678.1/sec 1730.58 HTTP Request5 6.615 0 20 0 320 0.00% 1399.3/sec 1443.07 HTTP Request10 70.106 0 100 0 26743.98% 829.9/sec 868.94 HTTP Request15 117.443 0 321 0 54283.88% 704.5/sec 737.30 10k HTTP Request1 8.2566 0 10 0 321 0.00% 848.4/sec 8531.98 HTTP Request5 37.6230 40 81 0 28940.00% 721.8/sec 7259.02 HTTP Request10 117.799 10 210 0 70504.12% 524.9/sec 5092.10 HTTP Request15 297.357 300 490 0 93431.03% 397.1/sec 3958.41 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
