Re: [JBoss-user] Tomcat vs. Apache web server and JBoss
+ 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 tomcat5-8 .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 htmlhead/headbodytest/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 avgmax 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
Re: [JBoss-user] Tomcat vs. Apache web server and JBoss
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 tomcat5-8 .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 htmlhead/headbodytest/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
Re: [JBoss-user] Tomcat vs. Apache web server and JBoss
Julian Gosnell wrote: Thanks for these, Heitzso, Very illuminating. May I ask what versions of Jetty you used in the tests ? Thanks, Jules jetty 3.0.6 -- 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 tomcat5-8 .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 htmlhead/headbodytest/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
RE: [JBoss-user] TomCat and Apache
Title: RE: [JBoss-user] TomCat and Apache Emerson, I am running jboss 2.2.2 with tomcat 3.2.2 and apache 1.3.12 on Windows 2000 and Linux and they work well together. For details on setting up mod_jk for the link between apache and tomcat have a look at http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-3.2-doc/mod_jk-howto.html Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Emerson Sent: 12 June 2001 23:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [JBoss-user] TomCat and Apache will version 3.2.2 of tomcat work with apache 1.3.12 Emerson Cargnin TRE-SC Setor de Desenvolvimento Tel: (48) 251-3700 - Ramal 3134 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
RE: [JBoss-user] TomCat and Apache
will version 3.2.2 of tomcat work with apache 1.3.12 have you tried why don't you try and let us know. Filip ~ Namaste - I bow to the divine in you ~ Filip Hanik Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.filip.net ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
