Re: Higher Throughputs

2008-06-13 Thread Quintin Beukes
Hey, That's an idea (to first get the code optimized before squeezing it into tomcat). I guess I just continued this way, as our current system is using HttpURLConnection. So I wanted to get an idea of how it will compare. I'll take your advice on running it in separate java apps? I assume that

Re: Higher Throughputs

2008-06-13 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 08:35 +0200, Quintin Beukes wrote: Hey, That's an idea (to first get the code optimized before squeezing it into tomcat). I guess I just continued this way, as our current system is using HttpURLConnection. So I wanted to get an idea of how it will compare. I'll

Re: Higher Throughputs

2008-06-13 Thread Quintin Beukes
How would I increase this? Q On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:56 +0200, Quintin Beukes wrote: Not getting expected rate when running inside tomcat. Here are my benchmark results for running as an application (direct

Re: Higher Throughputs

2008-06-13 Thread Quintin Beukes
I made some modifications to running it inside a servlet, and 51mb/s HttpCore, gets 30mb/s inside the servlet (while streaming it out). The servlet is also changed a bit, not wrapping the output stream in a BufferedOutputStream, and others. Either way, when the concurrency is 1 I get this 30mb/s,

[POLL][RESULT] Logging toolkit for HttpClient 4.x

2008-06-13 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
 Commons Logging: 8 slf4j: 10 java.util.logging:2 20 votes (out of ~330 subscribers) is hardly representative but there is not much I can do about it It looks like there is enough support to keep Commons Logging. Given

Re: Higher Throughputs

2008-06-13 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 17:05 +0200, Quintin Beukes wrote: I made some modifications to running it inside a servlet, and 51mb/s HttpCore, gets 30mb/s inside the servlet (while streaming it out). The servlet is also changed a bit, not wrapping the output stream in a BufferedOutputStream, and

Support for checksum with file download

2008-06-13 Thread Sabarivasan Viswanathan
I will be doing a simple POST request to download a large file (of the order of a few tens of megabytes). In order to ensure that the file is not corrupted during transmission, I want to do a checksum on the client and compare it with the server's. This seems like a very common thing to do. Is

Re: Support for checksum with file download

2008-06-13 Thread Stephen J. Butler
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Sabarivasan Viswanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be doing a simple POST request to download a large file (of the order of a few tens of megabytes). In order to ensure that the file is not corrupted during transmission, I want to do a checksum on the

Re: Support for checksum with file download

2008-06-13 Thread sebb
On 13/06/2008, Stephen J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Sabarivasan Viswanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be doing a simple POST request to download a large file (of the order of a few tens of megabytes). In order to ensure that the file

Re: Support for checksum with file download

2008-06-13 Thread Stephen J. Butler
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13/06/2008, Stephen J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Sabarivasan Viswanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be doing a simple POST request to download a large file (of the order of a

Re: Support for checksum with file download

2008-06-13 Thread sebb
On 13/06/2008, Stephen J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13/06/2008, Stephen J. Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Sabarivasan Viswanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be doing a