Florin, Have you tried using Apache's mod_proxy instead of mod_jk?
I'm not surprised that you get faster responses directly from Apache but 2-3 req/sec doesn't sound good for Tomcat either. I'll try this same tool in our configuration and see what we get. For us we configure mod_jk to communicate through the ofbiz AJP port. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP and goes directly to Tomcat's http port (8080). I'll run your recommended tool to see what gets better performance. Brett On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Florin Popa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It seems I was on a false track... the tests hits directly against ofbiz > (without Apache in front) did not work properly.. now they do and I only get > max 2-3 req.sec... > > What could be wrong configured? > > I tried similar hits against one simple tomcat and on 30 secs I reach 50000 > req/sec. > > I only touched this: > > <thread-pool send-to-pool="pool" > purge-job-days="4" > failed-retry-min="3" > ttl="180000" > wait-millis="750" > jobs="500" > min-threads="50" > max-threads="500" > poll-enabled="true" > poll-db-millis="20000"> > <run-from-pool name="pool"/> > </thread-pool> > > > What else needs to be configured for production load usage to reach more > requests per second? > > The cache is also properly confgured > > > thanks, > Florin > > Florin, >> >> I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances >> via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. >> >> I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a >> configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use >> mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used >> mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance >> testing >> to compare the differences between the two. >> >> Brett >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. >>> >>> Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network >>> admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as >>> balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than >>> mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. >>> Have you experienced that kind of things? >>> >>> best regards, >>> Florin Popa >>> >>> >>> >>> The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording >>> >>> >>>> proxy). >>>> >>>> BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the >>>> load you are planning on. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone for the help! >>>>> >>>>> Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the >>>>> switch >>>>> from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not >>>>> fully content :) >>>>> Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit >>>>> hard enough.. >>>>> >>>>> Any recommendation for such tools? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would >>>>> take >>>>> longer.. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Florin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection >>>>>> pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva >>>>>> connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there >>>>>> are >>>>>> errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors >>>>>> well, but >>>>>> also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it >>>>>> just >>>>>> doesn't recover at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool >>>>>> that >>>>>> we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can >>>>>> look >>>>>> at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume >>>>>> sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart >>>>>> the app >>>>>> server(s) every day. >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> older revisions.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> Florin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too >>>>>>>> large for me to be able to help you through it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The attempt to update Ofbiz to recent revision is for the moment >>>>>>>>> (time limits) not possible.. there are so many differences... I am >>>>>>>>> even not >>>>>>>>> sure if bsh could work further instead of the newly groovy ?! >>>>>>>>> ....also the >>>>>>>>> entity layer handling.. etc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what I tried was to back port the transaction management - >>>>>>>>> latest >>>>>>>>> attempt is attached >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
