-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/25/2009 1:30 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Caldarale, Charles R
Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
results]
There are some extracts from the 2007 O'Reilly Tomcat book about
benchmarking
From: Caldarale, Charles R
Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
results]
There are some extracts from the 2007 O'Reilly Tomcat book about benchmarking
on somewhat newer hardware than Chris is using:
http://www.devshed.com/c/b/BrainDump/
The interesting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
The message below was garbled when sent. Fortunately, it ended up being
preserved correctly in my sent message folder. Here it is.
- -chris
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
binfqTJI0hlYT.bin
Description: PGP/MIME version identification
Christopher Schultz wrote:
Chris, there's something wrong with this post.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com]
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
results]
Chris, there's something wrong with this post.
You have to use lemon juice and a heat source to read it...
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
Actually, I was thinking more of disabling the AccessLog in httpd, to
see how much impact that had.
(That's also less additional tests to run ;-))
Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/19/2009 2:28 PM, André Warnier wrote:
Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
So, I have some data from last night. It's about what you'd expect,
except that the NIO+sendfile connector test failed most of the time: the
client got something like apr_connect: Connection reset by peer when
it tried to connect to the server.
I'm a bit puzzled:
In your previous tests it looked like that Apache is outperforming
(ok, not really) Coyote w APR when the files grew bigger.
In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
/any/ pattern...
Any idea how come?
Cheers
Gregor
--
just because your
From: Gregor Schneider [mailto:rc4...@googlemail.com]
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [some
results]
In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
/any/ pattern...
Quantum mechanics?
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN
From: Caldarale, Charles R
Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [some
results]
In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
/any/ pattern...
Quantum mechanics?
More seriously, we may be seeing artifacts of various buffering sizes
Christopher Schultz wrote:
...
Thanks for the work. At least it may put to rest some gross misconceptions.
Now just a question : in the httpd tests, did you have an AccessLog
enabled ? I would imagine you did not have an AccessLogValve enabled in
Tomcat, and I wonder if it makes any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregor,
On 5/19/2009 12:59 PM, Gregor Schneider wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled:
In your previous tests it looked like that Apache is outperforming
(ok, not really) Coyote w APR when the files grew bigger.
I disagree with that conclusion. My
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/19/2009 2:28 PM, André Warnier wrote:
Christopher Schultz wrote:
...
Thanks for the work. At least it may put to rest some gross
misconceptions.
Now just a question : in the httpd tests, did you have an AccessLog
enabled ? I
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
I will be comparing an out-of-the-box prefork MPM httpd 2.2.10
configuration against an out-of-the-box Tomcat 5.5.26 Coyote, APR, and
APR without sendfile
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
1. Is the number of requests (100, sufficient? It seems to take
forever on this machine... my Coyote tests took longer than
overnight.
You want enough tests that they're sensitive to statistically significant
the apache httpd may cry foul because you are testing with a prefork config
instead of worker
assuming you can scare up another processor
is there a way to run the same httpd test suite with apache worker?
assuming the definition data_transfer_rate is accurate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 10:33 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net] 1.
Is the number of requests (100, sufficient? It seems to take
forever on this machine... my Coyote tests took longer than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin,
On 5/18/2009 10:47 AM, Martin Gainty wrote:
the apache httpd [crowd] may cry foul because you are testing with a
prefork config instead of worker assuming you can scare up another
processor
I'm happy to re-run the tests using a worker MPM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/18/2009 11:23 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Chuck,
Er, Peter. Sorry 'bout that.
- -chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
I suppose I could gauge each test so it would take (roughly) a certain
amount of time (say, 10 minutes). At least then I'd know how long the
entire battery would take :)
I think that's probably a better approach.
Okay. My
Entertainment, Inc.
WORK: 512-623-5913
CELL: 512-426-3929
www.KingsIsle.com
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:24 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 10:32 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
I will be comparing an out-of-the-box prefork MPM httpd 2.2.10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
On 5/18/2009 11:37 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
I suppose I could gauge each test so it would take (roughly) a certain
amount of time (say, 10 minutes). At least then I'd know how long the
entire battery would take :)
I think that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 11:35 AM, Robin Wilson wrote:
I'm curious by your comment that Coyote/APR is performing on par with
httpd, from the results in your first message I saw it was a pretty
big difference. Or are you saying that wasn't using APR?
Peter Crowther wrote:
...
As a rough first cut, vmstat 5 and watch the numbers ;-). iostat too, if you
can. If CPU isn't pegged at 100% and the disk isn't at full capacity, that's
an interesting result as it implies the box has spare capacity and there's
contention elsewhere - often lock
Also, I'd be curious about the big disparity between the 16MiB files
and the other 1MiB-32MiB files... It looks like all of them are
relatively consistent at the KiB/sec rates you show - but suddenly
there's a huge burst of speed on the 16MiB file (for httpd). So I'd
be really curious to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
- - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
- - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
- - Running tests for a certain amount
...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson
www.KingsIsle.com
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin
From: Robin Wilson [mailto:rwil...@kingsisle.com]
Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content
performance[Revised/Updated]
I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a dead heat...
Given the likely variability of any measurements taken in an 8-second run, even
10% or 15% would have
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
- - Using tcnative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 4:40 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
After reading some of your feedback, I've
Chris, what do the numbers represent ?
You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
the seconds it took, so what are they ?
I also wonder about the numbers, for example in the first column
(httpd). They seem to grow more or less lineraly as the file size
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/18/2009 4:56 PM, André Warnier wrote:
You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
the seconds it took, so what are they ?
They are transfer Rate (KiB/sec) as measured by ApacheBench.
I also wonder about
37 matches
Mail list logo
