Hi, Mark.
Keep your head up.  I just let you know that I started with 1 transaction
per 4 sec and now we could do per 0.5 sec.  As to scalability, I could make
it reaching max resource per box.  I started with 500 users and now on same
wintel box I could go above 2500 users, which I could prove that I reached
the max resources on that box.
It looks that you have a lot of things to do.  To get a shortcut, try IBM
JRocket.  If you application support JRocket, then you may gain the response
time instantly.  It worked on mine.  However, we stick with jdk 1.4.1 and
gain both response time and scalability.

good luck,
jay 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:21 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: performance question


Tomcat 4.0.6
Solaris 8
Java SDK 1.4.2

We have a web app that is slightly slow.  This is a problem because it is
just a bit slower than the app it is supposed to replace.  This has the
customer upset, partially because we all hate change, but also
understandably, the customer wants it faster.  We had a third party build
the application but we will maintain it.  For whatever reason the company
that built it will not be providing any more support as to how we can make
it go faster.  

We have looked at the box, and it does not seem to be taxed.  We have tried
setting CATALINA_OPTS to maximize performance but tomcat does not seem to be
using the additional memory and the system's load average remains low.

Is there any way we can have tomcat use more resources, as much as necessary
to run the application faster?

On a side note I can find no documentation that explains the difference
between JAVA_OPTS and CATALINA_OPTS?

Also, we tried upgrading to 4.1.24 yesterday on another test server.  The
application will not run correctly on the newer version of tomcat, any ideas
why?  The results of the queries are not correct and the data is not
returned correctly.  Is there any major change in tomcat 4.1.24 from 4.0.6
that would cause such a disparity.  


Thanks,
-Mark

Reply via email to