Hans Bergsten wrote:
Personally, I like to think in terms of percentages, as it gives something to measure improvement, and anything which will give 10% of free performance is good. (Of course, if you don't need the extra performance, then good for you)Costin Manolache wrote:quite significant. Even between 1.4 and 1.7 - you have 20%. Try to increase the thread count to 100 - and you'll see this going up. The difference ( 0.5s ) is probably 2-3 times the response time of apache for a static page. And most users will feel it.I agree that in percentage, the difference is somewhat significant, but don't make too much out of the real value. My test server is not representative of the type of hardware you would use for a site with this type of load. On hardware suitable for the task, the difference in the real values will likely be a lot smaller, and IMHO, insignificant. But please, let's not start a long debate about what's significant or not (that depends on too many factors). All I'm trying to show with these simple tests is that for pooling to really make a difference at all, you need to avoid all overhead, which may be very hard, and that the overhead with current pooling seems to eat all potential gain.
There have been a lot of changes which individually gave only a small performance gain when going from 4.0 to 4.1, but put everything together and it ends up being much faster. I also think it's great there's no longer any huge hotspot left in Tomcat, which would represent that much in (wasted) processing time. 5.0 will be no different, and will feature a lot of incremental performance improvements, which hopefully will be significant once all put together.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
