On 02/17/2011 08:11 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/02/2011 14:56, Afkham Azeez wrote:
Hi folks,
What is the advantage of using this connector as opposed to the default one?
In which scenarios would we tend to use the default connector, and in which
scenarios will it be more appropriate to use the NIO connector?
NIO and APR use one thread per currently processing request.
BIO uses one thread per connection. Since usually connections>>
currently processing request, NIO and APR scale better.
BIO has slightly better raw performance than NIO (excluding sendfile).
It used to be only when nr-of-clients<nr-of-threads-in-pool.
However, in tomcat trunk, BIO can handle keep alive on a large set of
connections as well.
APR and NIO support sendfile.
APR has much better SSL performance.
NIO supports non blocking SSL handshake, and thus can yield a better
performance.
NIO and APR support Comet, BIO does not.
As with anything performance related, YMMV. The only way to be sure is
to test it.
There is a test to make each and every connector perform better. So as
Mark said, the use case you're dealing with will determine what
connector you use.
If the application uses a lot of async javascript, then a non blocking
connector may be preferred.
Filip
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
