Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Hassan Schroeder wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) Might this not also be worth preserving in the Tomcat FAQ/wiki ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
2010/3/27 André Warnier a...@ice-sa.com: http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform Might this not also be worth preserving in the Tomcat FAQ/wiki ? There is http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/FAQ/Performance_and_Monitoring and it can be updated. Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Thanks for the link. au http://www.xprad.org/ Hassan Schroeder-2 wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) -- Hassan Schroeder hassan.schroe...@gmail.com twitter: @hassan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/httpd-vs.-Tomcat-performance-tp28023360p28056376.html Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Very entertaining reading! Thanks Chris and Mark for re-benchmarking, explaining, and giving your opinions on the results. I'm not entirely sure how I missed Chris' benchmark results email, almost exactly one year ago now. Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers. It would be great to get more information about how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server hardware was used. I tried to write my benchmark such that it is fully documented and repeatable all the way down to the configuration used on both the client and the server, etc. I also wanted to be completely clear and up front about the specific scenarios I was benchmarking -- there are many more that I wasn't -- so I wrote the explanations into the text as well. The results are, of course, only about the kinds of requests we're benchmarking, and also about the configuration(s) used. I did try to think up and benchmark the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can say their webapp isn't like that. :) Plus, I tried to write my benchmark to both inspire others to conduct and publish more benchmarks, and also to show a detailed example of one that others could modify and re-use. I was hoping to see more published benchmarks by now, but each one I find is really entertaining. I'm happy to see that Chris' independent benchmark numbers help to show that it is indeed a myth that Tomcat needs HTTPD in front of it in order to get good performance serving static files. And, it's great to see benchmark results for file sizes that I wasn't able to benchmark. Mark: I like your text about some of the other reasons people want to use HTTPD -- it is spot on, and in fact there are so many modules out there for it, there are countless logical reasons to use it. Thanks for the additional analysis. It helps. -- Jason On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote: On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the data. Mark
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Hi , We have a online shop developed as a suite of JSR168 portlets. On some portlets we list products and images (so there are about 25 images per page + other images). One image has around 250k. Performance was greatly improved after we put apache httpd in front (images served by apache gzipped response for js, html, css). We did not note numbers, but the improvement could be seen with naked eye. Now, reading the article, I think we should have tried APR also :) But hei, there are other reasons too for using httpd, such as handful apache modules (e.g. mod rewrite or gzip compression) Note: tomcat 6.0.18, NOT configured with APR running on debian linux sun jdk6 Regards, Marian Simpetru On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 02:39 +0100, Rémy Maucherat wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote: Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
On 25/03/2010 01:39, Rémy Maucherat wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote: Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers. What did you think was odd? Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
On 25/03/2010 07:01, Jason Brittain wrote: Very entertaining reading! Thanks Chris and Mark for re-benchmarking, explaining, and giving your opinions on the results. I'm not entirely sure how I missed Chris' benchmark results email, almost exactly one year ago now. Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers. It would be great to get more information about how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server hardware was used. Chris's original thread had most, if not all, of that info. I did have a reference to that in the blog post but it looks like it got garbled somewhere in the publishing process. I'll get that fixed. In the meantime, MarkMail should be able to find it. I tried to write my benchmark such that it is fully documented and repeatable all the way down to the configuration used on both the client and the server, etc. I also wanted to be completely clear and up front about the specific scenarios I was benchmarking -- there are many more that I wasn't -- so I wrote the explanations into the text as well. The results are, of course, only about the kinds of requests we're benchmarking, and also about the configuration(s) used. I did try to think up and benchmark the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can say their webapp isn't like that. :) Indeed. Benchmarks are useful guides to general trends but nothing is going beat benchmarking your own web application with realistic usage patterns. Plus, I tried to write my benchmark to both inspire others to conduct and publish more benchmarks, and also to show a detailed example of one that others could modify and re-use. I was hoping to see more published benchmarks by now, but each one I find is really entertaining. I think the time it takes to do a really good benchmark is a significant barrier. I wanted to do a new benchmark for the blog post but just didn't have the time. It is on the todo list but things like Tomcat 7 and bug fixes keep getting in the way :) Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark, On 3/24/2010 8:50 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. Hey, I could have been making all that stuff up. BTW: the link on that page to performance testing doesn't seem clickable to me (ff 3.6.2). I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the data. I'd be happy to give you my raw data plus the graphs I already did. OOo format okay? - -chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuroZQACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBulACgwHCDOu1ZeXP1Sufks7zQMWU3 dR8AnjKKnNR/FmYzyP8l3FKsazqAHiyo =WbBv -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
On 25/03/2010 17:47, Christopher Schultz wrote: Mark, On 3/24/2010 8:50 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. Hey, I could have been making all that stuff up. BTW: the link on that page to performance testing doesn't seem clickable to me (ff 3.6.2). I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the data. I'd be happy to give you my raw data plus the graphs I already did. OOo format okay? Perfect. Tx. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason, On 3/25/2010 3:01 AM, Jason Brittain wrote: Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers. I'd be happy to give you a quick explanation, while a complete writeup is still... on the back burner. Those Tomcat people keep putting out new releases and it takes a long time to run all the tests. I have yet to run keepalive versus non-keepalive (well, just the keepalive test) against all the connectors (plus httpd) AND Andre' asked about SSL, so I suppose I'll have to try that, too. Here's the deal: All numbers in the cells are effective transfer rate (in KiB/sec) over an 8-minute testing window: basically, I made as many requests as I could for 8 minutes straight to a single static file (file size listed in the left-hand column) and let ApacheBench tell me what the transfer rate was (which IIRC does not include HTTP headers, etc.: just the file content). It looks like Mark cherry-picked the results with this profile: keepalive=off, concurrency=40, Client VM I also did concurrencies (parallel client threads) of 1, 80, 160, and 200 (I think... I hadn't yet merged that data into my spreadsheet). It's all very repeatable using a set of scripts I wrote for this purpose. It would be great to get more information about how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server hardware was used. - From my forthcoming (!) write-up: These tests were performed on a modest machine with a single-core 32-bit microprocessor (see Appendix A for a complete description of the test hardware) and 1GiB RAM. Tomcat 6.0.20, tcnative 1.1.18, and apr 1.3.8 was tested on Sun's Java Virtual Machine 1.6.0_15_b03 (client and server JVMs were tested separately: see the individual tests for details). Apache httpd 2.2.12 was used for comparison. Both httpd and Tomcat were used in their default configurations where applicable (that is, no performance-oriented tuning was performed on either configuration). ApacheBench 2.3 was used to test transfer rates from each server configuration. The tests were run from the local machine to avoid network interference. Unless otherwise specified, all software was kept in it's default configuration. That is, no tuning was performed on any of the components for these tests. I did try to think up and benchmark the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can say their webapp isn't like that. I stuck to static files because nobody cares what the performance of running a JSP relative to httpd is... since HTTP doesn't serve them :) I'm happy to see that Chris' independent benchmark numbers help to show that it is indeed a myth that Tomcat needs HTTPD in front of it in order to get good performance serving static files. And, it's great to see benchmark results for file sizes that I wasn't able to benchmark. I also intend to show what the overhead is of adding httpd needlessly in front of Tomcat. I suspect that it won't be that bad :) - -chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkurqD0ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBTTQCeNdqh/MEeFA0pdrlXtnWNC9qI ZY4AoLNyKI2RyhL64tcEoqDjzlVitqqY =iBpD -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) -- Hassan Schroeder hassan.schroe...@gmail.com twitter: @hassan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform because I don't know if the author (a certain mthomas) will mention it here. :-) (via @springsource on Twitter) Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the data. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote: Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion. That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
