-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
David Boreham wrote:
I think you also need to factor in the labor cost to manage two
different servers. I know that in our production deployments we could
buy many many machines for the cost of the time we've spent trying to
make AJP work.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
Peter Crowther wrote:
From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:rosenberg.l...@googlemail.com]
Well, actually when it comes to IO performance Java outperforms C, so
I wouldn't place my money on old bets like C is faster because its C.
It isn't.
You should all just switch to perl.
It's much less complicated that all this JVM, JIT, Gcs, memory leaks,
classloaders, commons logging and and all that stuff.
You would not even need Tomcat.
You could go to ApacheCON, skip half the sessions with a clear
conscience and have good beer instead.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:45 PM, André Warnier a...@ice-sa.com wrote:
You should all just switch to perl.
*yuck* - coding in perl always make my eyes squint and my hair stick out =8|
You could go to ApacheCON, skip half the sessions with a clear conscience
and have good beer instead.
well,
From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:rosenberg.l...@googlemail.com]
Well, actually when it comes to IO performance Java outperforms C, so
I wouldn't place my money on old bets like C is faster because its C.
It isn't.
Specifics! Which platform(s), which compiler(s), which runtime(s), which
David Boreham wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
I think you also need to factor in the labor cost to manage two
different servers. I know that in our production deployments we
could buy many many machines for the cost of the time we've spent
trying to make AJP work. Tomcat could
Mladen Turk wrote:
When it comes to the large file serving then the OS sendfile
support in Tomcat Native outperforms the standard Java IO
by an order of magnitude (In some of my tests up to 4 times),
and with constant memory usage regardless of file size.
There is also some other advanced
Well, if you don't want to deal with the APR (which I don't think is
all that complicated), maybe new NIO-connector is worth a try:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/config/http.html
However, I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing NIO with APR,
especially when it comes to SSL
Btw., a
Gregor Schneider wrote:
Well, if you don't want to deal with the APR (which I don't think is
all that complicated), maybe new NIO-connector is worth a try:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/config/http.html
However, I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing NIO with APR,
especially when it
From: Gregor Schneider [mailto:rc4...@googlemail.com]
Subject: Re: Performance of APR
However, I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing NIO with APR,
especially when it comes to SSL
SSL handling is the same for the NIO and the traditional Java connector, so APR
wins there. Filip has
Jess Holle wrote:
You can make your own LB using Tomcat.
Yes, I /could/, but Apache already does it. I don't want to invest
enough of my own time in such a thing to put it on an equal footing
with mod_jk and mod_proxy_ajp.
Until someone does, though, Apache is a really necessary piece in a
David Boreham wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
You can make your own LB using Tomcat.
Yes, I /could/, but Apache already does it. I don't want to invest
enough of my own time in such a thing to put it on an equal footing
with mod_jk and mod_proxy_ajp.
Until someone does, though, Apache is a really
Christopher Schultz wrote:
I can't help but suspect that Apache httpd will outperform Tomcat even
when it's running APR for static content, merely due to the overhead of
the JVM, heap management, etc. (which I realize are fairly minimal).
Can anyone give a non-flame comment or point to an
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Performance of APR
due to the overhead of the JVM, heap management, etc.
Actually, object allocation these days is quite a bit faster than a malloc(),
and objects that quickly become unreachable quickly cost almost
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
I often hear folks on the list mentioning that since the APR library is
the same as that which runs under Apache httpd, the performance of the
two
David Boreham wrote:
I think you also need to factor in the labor cost to manage two
different servers. I know that in our production deployments we could
buy many many machines for the cost of the time we've spent trying to
make AJP work. Tomcat could be 10x slower than Apache and I'd still
Jess Holle wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
I think you also need to factor in the labor cost to manage two
different servers. I know that in our production deployments we could
buy many many machines for the cost of the time we've spent trying to
make AJP work. Tomcat could be 10x slower than
Jess Holle wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
I think you also need to factor in the labor cost to manage two
different servers. I know that in our production deployments we could
buy many many machines for the cost of the time we've spent trying to
make AJP work. Tomcat could be 10x slower than
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Christopher Schultz
I can't help but suspect that Apache httpd will outperform Tomcat even
when it's running APR for static content, merely due to the overhead of
the JVM, heap management, etc. (which I realize are fairly minimal).
Well,
19 matches
Mail list logo
