-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/25/2009 1:30 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Caldarale, Charles R
>> Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
>> results]
>
> There are some extracts from the 2007 O&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
The message below was garbled when sent. Fortunately, it ended up being
preserved correctly in my sent message folder. Here it is.
- -chris
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
> From: Caldarale, Charles R
> Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
> results]
There are some extracts from the 2007 O'Reilly Tomcat book about benchmarking
on somewhat newer hardware than Chris is using:
http://www.devshed.com/c/b/BrainDump/
T
> From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com]
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [more
> results]
>
> Chris, there's something wrong with this post.
You have to use lemon juice and a heat source to read it...
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY
Christopher Schultz wrote:
Chris, there's something wrong with this post.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
binfqTJI0hlYT.bin
Description: PGP/MIME version identification
Actually, I was thinking more of disabling the AccessLog in httpd, to
see how much impact that had.
(That's also less additional tests to run ;-))
Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/19/2009 2:28 PM, André Warnier wrote:
Christopher Schultz w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/19/2009 2:28 PM, André Warnier wrote:
> Christopher Schultz wrote:
> ...
> Thanks for the work. At least it may put to rest some gross
> misconceptions.
>
> Now just a question : in the httpd tests, did you have an AccessLog
> enabled ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregor,
On 5/19/2009 12:59 PM, Gregor Schneider wrote:
> I'm a bit puzzled:
>
> In your previous tests it looked like that Apache is "outperforming"
> (ok, not really) Coyote w APR when the files grew bigger.
I disagree with that conclusion. My inte
Christopher Schultz wrote:
...
Thanks for the work. At least it may put to rest some gross misconceptions.
Now just a question : in the httpd tests, did you have an AccessLog
enabled ? I would imagine you did not have an AccessLogValve enabled in
Tomcat, and I wonder if it makes any practical
> From: Caldarale, Charles R
> Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [some
> results]
>
> > In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
> > /any/ pattern...
>
> Quantum mechanics?
More seriously, we may
> From: Gregor Schneider [mailto:rc4...@googlemail.com]
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [some
> results]
>
> In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
> /any/ pattern...
Quantum mechanics?
- Chuck
TH
I'm a bit puzzled:
In your previous tests it looked like that Apache is "outperforming"
(ok, not really) Coyote w APR when the files grew bigger.
In your last results I can't see that pattern - actually, I don't see
/any/ pattern...
Any idea how come?
Cheers
Gregor
--
just because your parano
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
So, I have some data from last night. It's about what you'd expect,
except that the NIO+sendfile connector test failed most of the time: the
client got something like "apr_connect: Connection reset by peer" when
it tried to connect to the server.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/18/2009 4:56 PM, André Warnier wrote:
> You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
> the seconds it took, so what are they ?
They are transfer Rate (KiB/sec) as measured by ApacheBench.
> I also wonder about
Chris, what do the numbers represent ?
You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
the seconds it took, so what are they ?
I also wonder about the numbers, for example in the first column
(httpd). They seem to grow more or less lineraly as the file size
increase
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 4:40 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
>> [Revised/Updated]
>>
>&
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
> [Revised/Updated]
>
> After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
>
> - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively
> From: Robin Wilson [mailto:rwil...@kingsisle.com]
> Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content
> performance[Revised/Updated]
>
> I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"...
Given the likely variability of any measurements taken in an 8
le Entertainment, Inc.
> WORK: 512-623-5913
> CELL: 512-426-3929
> www.KingsIsle.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Apach
Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
to:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
- - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
- - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
- - Running tests for a certain amount of
> Also, I'd be curious about the big disparity between the 16MiB files
> and the other 1MiB-32MiB files... It looks like all of them are
> relatively consistent at the KiB/sec rates you show - but suddenly
> there's a huge burst of speed on the 16MiB file (for httpd). So I'd
> be really curious to
Peter Crowther wrote:
...
As a rough first cut, vmstat 5 and watch the numbers ;-). iostat too, if you
can. If CPU isn't pegged at 100% and the disk isn't at full capacity, that's
an interesting result as it implies the box has spare capacity and there's
contention elsewhere - often lock co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 11:35 AM, Robin Wilson wrote:
> I'm curious by your comment that Coyote/APR is performing on par with
> httpd, from the results in your first message I saw it was a pretty
> big difference. Or are you saying that wasn't using APR?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
On 5/18/2009 11:37 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>> I suppose I could gauge each test so it would take (roughly) a certain
>> > amount of time (say, 10 minutes). At least then I'd know how long the
>> > entire battery would take :)
>
> I think tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 10:32 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
>>
>> I will be comparing an out-of-the-box prefork MPM httpd
r of Web Development
KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
WORK: 512-623-5913
CELL: 512-426-3929
www.KingsIsle.com
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:24 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static c
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> I suppose I could gauge each test so it would take (roughly) a certain
> amount of time (say, 10 minutes). At least then I'd know how long the
> entire battery would take :)
I think that's probably a better approach.
> Okay. My o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/18/2009 11:23 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Chuck,
Er, Peter. Sorry 'bout that.
- -chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRgJYACgkQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin,
On 5/18/2009 10:47 AM, Martin Gainty wrote:
> the apache httpd [crowd] may cry foul because you are testing with a
> prefork config instead of worker assuming you can scare up another
> processor
I'm happy to re-run the tests using a worker M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 10:33 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net] 1.
>> Is the number of requests (100, sufficient? It seems to take
>> forever on this machine... my Coyote tests took longer th
the apache httpd may cry foul because you are testing with a prefork config
instead of worker
assuming you can scare up another processor
is there a way to run the same httpd test suite with apache worker?
assuming the definition data_transfer_rate is accurate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> 1. Is the number of requests (100, sufficient? It seems to take
>forever on this machine... my Coyote tests took longer than
>overnight.
You want enough tests that they're sensitive to statistically significant
differ
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
>
> I will be comparing an out-of-the-box prefork MPM httpd 2.2.10
> configuration against an out-of-the-box Tomcat 5.5.26 Coyote, APR, and
> APR without sendfile configur
37 matches
Mail list logo
