I think it's only for Linux (and AIX) - good reason to switch. :)
More info is available at: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech
Todd Carmichael wrote:
>
> Running Windows 2000 Advanced Server with Sun JDK 1.3 and hotspot.
>
> Anyone know where can I find the IBM JDK 1.3 for Windows platforms?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: performance
>
> With tomcat 3.2.1 and IBM JDK1.3 on linux
>
> running a PII 400Mhz with 192Megs (physical) I was able toget
>
> 650 requests/sec
>
> running apache ab like this
> -n 10000 -c 100
> against the RequestInfo example servlet. with no un-returned requests.
>
> Which JVM/OS where you running in the tests below?
>
> Todd Carmichael wrote:
> >
> > My tests, using Microsofts Web Application Stress (WAS) Tool, had the
> > following results for a simple servlet that all it did was display a
> single
> > html table:
> >
> > Weblogic: 490 requests/sec
> > Tomcat: 540 requests/sec
> > Resin: 850 requests/sec - produced numerous socket errors (Connection
> reset
> > by peer). The other servlet engines did not do this.
> >
> > This was on a Pentium III 600 Mhz with a heap of 128mb. I had 4 WAS
> (HTTP)
> > clients engaged in the tests. Each client had 50 threads hitting the Web
> > server
> >
> > The real question being asked is Tomcat suitable for production
> > environments. This is something I really would like to get a feel for
> from
> > other developers experiences. I am very interested in using Tomcat for
> > production and the performance seems reasonable enough for me. I am
> curious
> > about monitoring tools and security issues with open source; that is what
> > our IT department will hammer us on.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:56 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: performance
> >
> > Tomcat does indeed "catch up" if I stop the jmeter client, accessing the
> > application through a browser is much more responsive, but still a little
> > slower than I would hope. The same test with resin does not show any
> > noticeable degradation in performance. In fact I upped the ante with
> resin.
> > I started 2 more jmeter clients (configured the same), and still noticed
> no
> > significant drop in performance when accessing the site through a browser.
> A
> > few connections were refused, but that is to be expected, with the current
> > configuration.
> >
> > You may ask, why not just use resin and stop whining :) ... in short while
> > resin does perform it has some problems in how it implements the servlet
> > spec that make me leery of deploying a production app on it.
> >
> > Once again, any insight would be appreciated.
> >
> > p.s. Randy,
> >
> > Thanks for the info, I will check into the things that you mentioned. With
> > regards to the fingers, they are hard to come by, but I heard amazon.com
> is
> > opening a new branch and offering extremely discounted server fingers ..
> you
> > may want to check there :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Layman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:30 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: performance
> >
> > I thought about what the delay probably meant after I sent the
> > message, but the message was already sent by then.
> >
> > Back to the orginal problem or the performance.... Other people
> > have reported similar problems under "high" load. No one have ever really
> > given a definition of what high is since it depends upon your application,
> > however I would think that 20 concurent users should be completely
> supported
> > by Tomcat (our application does it).
> >
> > Two things to note:
> > 1. People who have reported these issuses usually say that if the
> > requests stop, Tomcat will eventually catch up
> > 2. You might want to check whether or not its your application.
> > Try the same test, but request a small static file. This will show you
> what
> > the best performance you could hope to get. There were a few messages
> about
> > a week or two ago about tuning Tomcat, you might want to look at that,
> > although there wasn't much there. Another thing is you might look
> throught
> > the source and see where they initalize the thread pool (probably in
> > PoolTcpConnectors). Uping this size should give you more concurrent
> users,
> > however it will add more overhead when the server is idle. While you're
> > running your test, keep an eye on your network bandwidth usage and cpu
> > utilization. Its possible that you might be saturating the network (are
> the
> > responses very large?) or that you are only using one of your 4 processors
> > (I have no idea how to fix this).
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > PS Bob - where can I get some more fingers for my system? It needs to
> count
> > to 2.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:08 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: performance
> >
> > That math didn't really work with JMeter anyway... even if you did
> > have 20 threads with 1ms delay, you don't get 20,000 request/sec. Jmeter
> > starts up 20 threads which each make a GET request to the server
> > but each thread only makes another request after it receives an answer
> > then it waits 1ms or 100ms whatever you have it sent to... So if none
> > of the threads get an ansewr then you have 0 requests/sec after they
> > are all tied up.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, that was a typo. Jmeter is configured with a 100 ms delay, 20
> > threads
> > > :) , although the story is pretty much the same even with a 1000 ms
> delay.
> > >
> > > ( p.s. I also added an extra couple of fingers to the server so it could
> > > count higher ;) )
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Randy Layman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:50 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: performance
> > >
> > > Light load? It looks to me that you are sending
> > > 1ms * 1000 ms/s * 20 threads = 20,000 requests per second to the
> > > server. This would translate to 20K request/second * 60 seconds/min *
> 60
> > > minutes/hour = 72,000,000 request per hour. Maybe I'm not understanding
> > the
> > > numbers you quote (I'm not familary with JMeter), but I would be
> suprised
> > if
> > > any non-clustered web server running on Intel hardware could handle 72
> > > million hits per hour.
> > >
> > > (Although I would also be suprised if a Microsoft operating
> system
> > > could count to 72 million ;) )
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:12 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: performance
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I know that Tomcat does not claim to strive for the performance
> > > characteristics of other servlet containers, such as resin. However, I
> am
> > > wondering just how bad the performance is. I have run some tests, and I
> > have
> > > been a bit surprised.
> > >
> > > Test environment is a 4 proc NT server with 1 gig of memory. I am using
> > > tomcat 3.2.1 running standalone, and have set the max heap size for the
> > JVM
> > > to be about half of physical memory, also I have the server hotspot jit
> > > installed.. Additionally I am using Jmeter to apply some load.
> > >
> > > With 1 Jmeter client configured with a standard delay of 1 ms and 20
> > > threads, the website being hit becomes essentially non-responsive. Using
> > the
> > > same configuration, but substituting resin for tomcat, shows no
> noticeable
> > > degradation in performance.
> > >
> > > Again, I am not surprised that resin performs better, but I am surprised
> > > that Tomcat is that much slower, with even a light load applied.
> > >
> > > Are these performance characteristics to be expected. Does these results
> > > surprise anyone.
> > >
> > > Any feedback would be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(650) 969-5000 x104
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
