On 17/02/2011 16:09, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > 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.
To a point. The Tomcat 7 BIO connector does scale better than the Tomcat 6 BIO but the NIO connector still has better scalability. In Tomcat 7 the BIO connector sockets are put in a queue and processed in turn. Processing includes waiting for data to turn up. Once a request has been processed, a socket using keep-alive goes to the back of the queue. It is possible for a socket with data to process to be in the queue whilst all the threads are sat waiting for data to turn up for sockets in the keep-alive state. (Tomcat 6 had no queue - once a thread started processing a socket it was dedicated to that socket until the socket was closed) In the NIO connector the poller only passes a socket to a processing thread when there is data to process. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
