Thanks for these, Heitzso,
Very illuminating.
May I ask what versions of Jetty you used in the tests
?
Thanks,
Jules
--- Heitzso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >+ Somebody
reported that Tomcat stalls at approx.
> 40 simultaneous requests.
> >
> >+ Linux usually treat 100 apache better then one
> JVM with 100 threads inside
> >(my personal opinion, no serious tests were made);
> I have no idea about
> >Solaris and Windows.
> >
> Some notes re my experience pushing on this
> (apache/tomcat and tomcat load)
>
> 1) I've successfully pushed 1000 parallel requests
> through tomcat w/ no
> problem
> Somebody scream -- there's bs going on here.
> Actually, due to test harness
> time in setting up threads some threads finished
> before all 1000 threads
> setup.
> I experienced a large difference in how many threads
> successfully
> handled (and
> elapsed time as viewed client side) depending on
> server memory, -Xmx
> setting, and JVM.
>
> 2) I can't actually pinpoint where the max/min of
> the response curve is on
> this, but in a server with limited memory (and cpu?)
> resources having
> the combo
> apache-tomcat can be worse than tomcat alone because
> of memory
> swap. So if you have heavy simultaneous requests
> load the swap time can
> be worse than the tomcat-slow time (assuming tomcat
> threads alone
> to bump into swap memory). For most people this is
> not an issue,
> but on memory constrained servers (i.e. 64M RAM) it
> is a problem.
>
> Some data points where client and server on same
> system that's not memory
> constrained (750 Athlon, 3/4G RAM, debian unstable,
> 2.4.5 kernel):
>
> 600
> parallel
> #/s avg max avg max
>
> static jetty 8-9 .003-.009 .212@300 .003 .128
> static tomcat 8-9 .008-.016 .670@600 .016 .670
> soap jetty 6-8 .042-.330 2.300@200 .039 .715
> soap tomcat 5-8 .047-2.826 4.837@50 .047 .722
>
> So, at 600 parallel requests I saw tomcat responding
> worse
> case less than a second for both static and soap
> (read servlet)
> response. Although other loads saw response times
> as bad
> as 2.3 sec (jetty) and 4.8 sec (tomcat) which I
> assume were due
> to garbage collection holdups.
>
> Contrast w/ memory constrained server apache static
> responses over a network (several states separating
> client/server, times in milliseconds):
>
> 400 parallel calls to Apache ...
> min 418, max 48664, average 26315, count 400
> maximum number of simultaneous threads: 400
> approximat requests per second: 7
>
> Note 26 sec average response time and 48 sec
> max response time. Test page was bare minimum
> <html><head></head><body>test</body></html>
> type of file.
>
> While I'm tossing out crude (and milage will vary)
> numbers, Blackdown 1.3.0 (I know 1.3.1 is out,
> haven't benched)
> versus IBM jvm 1.3.0 (recent download) on Linux:
>
> 600
> parallel
> #/s avg max avg
> max
> static black. 55-158 .006-.010 .205@600 .007
> .205
> static ibm 8-9 .008-.016 .670@600 .016
> .670
> soap black. 17-26 .048-1.387 2.976@100 .296
> 1.812
> soap ibm 5-8 .047-2.826 4.837@50 .047
> .722
>
> Needless to say, it appears that someone optimized
> blackdown
> for some of these tasks. BTW, servlet container was
> tomcat 3.2.2.
>
> There's also a developer at our shop who's
> interested in
> looking at green versus native threads on linux in
> the belief
> that the green threads may out perform native under
> heavy
> load. I haven't tested that variation.
>
> CONCLUSION: You really need to study your
> own working load and server env. to assess optimum
> combo of apache or apache-tomcat.
>
> Heitzso
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JBoss-user mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
