RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
If you have an operating system -- tomcat/apache with mod_jk.so. In your apache httpd.conf file find where you placed your statement: JkLogLevel warn change this to: JKLogLevel error restart apache (probably- /usr/sbin/apachectl restart) // I would go ahead and restart tomcat as well. That's it. Regards, Craig -Original Message- From: Hunter Hillegas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:29 AM To: Tomcat User List Subject: Re: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache I somewhat "Tomcat Internals" ignorant. What change would I need to make to see the kind of increases you are talking about? Hunter -- Hunter Hillegas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is Sharky Towers? What is BroTools? > From: "Craig O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:03:05 -0700 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > VERY COOL guys!! What a nice letter to wake up to. > > I made the change mentioned and my server's performance went from 14.51 > pages per second to 82 pages per second. Still if I access tomcat directly > I get over 200 pages per second but that is much better. > > Any other ideas? > > Thanks, > Craig > > -Original Message- > From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > > I'm +1 to remove the fdatasync or any other > sync method. > > Log must be run with low priority > > If Dan agree, I'll remove the datasync. :) > > - > Henri Gomez ___[_] > EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) > PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... > PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 > > > >> -----Original Message- >> From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:33 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >> >> >> Hello Henri, hello Thomas, >> >> The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging >> code of mod_jk. >> I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be >> checked, if >> that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the >> file system >> cache which should be enough) is really needed. >> >> The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual >> production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level >> "warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging >> declares only: >> >> #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 >> #define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 >> #define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 >> #define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 >> >> #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" >> #define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" >> #define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" >> #define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" >> >> and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls >> through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug >> output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. >> >> We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load >> production system >> and had some hard hours to find out. >> >> I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is >> corrected in the >> next release (by changing documentation and default - not >> code), the first >> thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Rainer Jung >> >> >> At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >>> Could you be more explicit. >>> >>> OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> - >>> Henri Gomez ___[_] >>> EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >>> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >>> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >>> >>> >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >>>> >>>> >>>> I encountered the following problem: >>>> Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >>>> apache, compared >>>> to a direct acces
Re: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
I somewhat "Tomcat Internals" ignorant. What change would I need to make to see the kind of increases you are talking about? Hunter -- Hunter Hillegas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is Sharky Towers? What is BroTools? > From: "Craig O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:03:05 -0700 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > VERY COOL guys!! What a nice letter to wake up to. > > I made the change mentioned and my server's performance went from 14.51 > pages per second to 82 pages per second. Still if I access tomcat directly > I get over 200 pages per second but that is much better. > > Any other ideas? > > Thanks, > Craig > > -Original Message- > From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > > I'm +1 to remove the fdatasync or any other > sync method. > > Log must be run with low priority > > If Dan agree, I'll remove the datasync. :) > > - > Henri Gomez ___[_] > EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) > PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... > PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:33 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >> >> >> Hello Henri, hello Thomas, >> >> The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging >> code of mod_jk. >> I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be >> checked, if >> that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the >> file system >> cache which should be enough) is really needed. >> >> The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual >> production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level >> "warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging >> declares only: >> >> #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 >> #define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 >> #define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 >> #define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 >> >> #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" >> #define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" >> #define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" >> #define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" >> >> and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls >> through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug >> output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. >> >> We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load >> production system >> and had some hard hours to find out. >> >> I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is >> corrected in the >> next release (by changing documentation and default - not >> code), the first >> thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Rainer Jung >> >> >> At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >>> Could you be more explicit. >>> >>> OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> - >>> Henri Gomez ___[_] >>> EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >>> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >>> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >>> >>> >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >>>> >>>> >>>> I encountered the following problem: >>>> Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >>>> apache, compared >>>> to a direct access. >>>> >>>> The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of >>>> mod_jk to error >>>> instead of warn(as proposed). >>>> >>>> httpd.conf: >>>> JkLogLevel error >>>> >>>> >>>> Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. >>>> >>>> This is the logoutput for out simple request if >>>> JkLogLevel warn: >>&g
RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
ajp13 java code need to be optimized (in TC 3.3) to the same point the http 1.0 connector. And you could see even better performance :) - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >-Original Message- >From: Craig O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:03 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > >VERY COOL guys!! What a nice letter to wake up to. > >I made the change mentioned and my server's performance went from 14.51 >pages per second to 82 pages per second. Still if I access >tomcat directly >I get over 200 pages per second but that is much better. > >Any other ideas? > >Thanks, >Craig > >-Original Message- >From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:51 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > >I'm +1 to remove the fdatasync or any other >sync method. > >Log must be run with low priority > >If Dan agree, I'll remove the datasync. :) > >- >Henri Gomez ___[_] >EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:33 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >> >> >>Hello Henri, hello Thomas, >> >>The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging >>code of mod_jk. >>I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be >>checked, if >>that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the >>file system >>cache which should be enough) is really needed. >> >>The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual >>production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level >>"warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging >>declares only: >> >>#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 >>#define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 >>#define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 >>#define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 >> >>#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" >>#define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" >>#define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" >>#define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" >> >>and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls >>through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug >>output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. >> >>We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load >>production system >>and had some hard hours to find out. >> >>I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is >>corrected in the >>next release (by changing documentation and default - not >>code), the first >>thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. >> >>Greetings, >> >>Rainer Jung >> >> >>At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >>>Could you be more explicit. >>> >>>OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>- >>>Henri Gomez ___[_] >>>EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >>>PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >>>PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >>> >>> >>> >>> >-Original Message- >>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >>> > >>> > >>> >I encountered the following problem: >>> >Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >>> >apache, compared >>> >to a direct access. >>> > >>> >The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of >>> >mod_jk to error >>> >instead of warn(as proposed). >>> > >>> >httpd.conf: >>> >JkLogLevel error >>> > >>> > >>> >Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. >>> > >>> >This is the logoutput for out simple request if >>> >JkLogLevel
RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
VERY COOL guys!! What a nice letter to wake up to. I made the change mentioned and my server's performance went from 14.51 pages per second to 82 pages per second. Still if I access tomcat directly I get over 200 pages per second but that is much better. Any other ideas? Thanks, Craig -Original Message- From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache I'm +1 to remove the fdatasync or any other sync method. Log must be run with low priority If Dan agree, I'll remove the datasync. :) - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >-Original Message- >From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:33 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > >Hello Henri, hello Thomas, > >The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging >code of mod_jk. >I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be >checked, if >that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the >file system >cache which should be enough) is really needed. > >The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual >production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level >"warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging >declares only: > >#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 >#define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 >#define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 >#define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 > >#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" >#define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" >#define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" >#define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" > >and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls >through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug >output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. > >We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load >production system >and had some hard hours to find out. > >I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is >corrected in the >next release (by changing documentation and default - not >code), the first >thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. > >Greetings, > >Rainer Jung > > >At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >>Could you be more explicit. >> >>OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version >> >>Thanks >> >>- >>Henri Gomez ___[_] >>EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >>PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >>PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >> >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >> > >> > >> >I encountered the following problem: >> >Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >> >apache, compared >> >to a direct access. >> > >> >The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of >> >mod_jk to error >> >instead of warn(as proposed). >> > >> >httpd.conf: >> >JkLogLevel error >> > >> > >> >Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. >> > >> >This is the logoutput for out simple request if >> >JkLogLevel warn: >> > >> >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (344)]: Into >> >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker >> >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (406)]: >> >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker, Found >> >a match loadbalancer >> >[jk_worker.c (123)]: Into wc_get_worker_for_name loadbalancer >> >[jk_worker.c (127)]: wc_get_worker_for_name, done found a worker >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (471)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (300)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (651)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (536)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >> >[jk_ajp13.c (346)]: Into ajp13_marshal_into_msgb >> >[jk_ajp13.c (480)]: ajp13_marshal_into_msgb - Done >> >[jk_connect.c (108)]: Into jk_open_socket >> >[jk_connect.c (115)]: jk_open_socket, try to connect socket = 8 >> >[jk_connect.c (124)]: jk_open_socket, after connect ret = 0 >> >[jk_connect.c (132)]: jk_open_socket, set TCP_NODELAY to on >> >[jk_connect.c (140)]: jk_open_socket, return, sd = 8 >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (166)]: In >> >jk_endpoint_t::connect_to_tomcat, connected >> >sd = 8 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (527)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: status = 200 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (534)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Number of >headers is = 1 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (576)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Header[0] >> >[Content-Type] = >> >[text/html] >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (489)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (378)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done >> > >> > >> > >> >Greethings, Thomas >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Dreaming of a Swiss Account? Get it here: http://freemail.swissinfo.org > >
RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
I'm +1 to remove the fdatasync or any other sync method. Log must be run with low priority If Dan agree, I'll remove the datasync. :) - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >-Original Message- >From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:33 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > >Hello Henri, hello Thomas, > >The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging >code of mod_jk. >I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be >checked, if >that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the >file system >cache which should be enough) is really needed. > >The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual >production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level >"warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging >declares only: > >#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 >#define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 >#define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 >#define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 > >#define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" >#define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" >#define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" >#define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" > >and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls >through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug >output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. > >We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load >production system >and had some hard hours to find out. > >I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is >corrected in the >next release (by changing documentation and default - not >code), the first >thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. > >Greetings, > >Rainer Jung > > >At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >>Could you be more explicit. >> >>OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version >> >>Thanks >> >>- >>Henri Gomez ___[_] >>EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >>PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >>PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >> >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache >> > >> > >> >I encountered the following problem: >> >Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >> >apache, compared >> >to a direct access. >> > >> >The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of >> >mod_jk to error >> >instead of warn(as proposed). >> > >> >httpd.conf: >> >JkLogLevel error >> > >> > >> >Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. >> > >> >This is the logoutput for out simple request if >> >JkLogLevel warn: >> > >> >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (344)]: Into >> >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker >> >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (406)]: >> >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker, Found >> >a match loadbalancer >> >[jk_worker.c (123)]: Into wc_get_worker_for_name loadbalancer >> >[jk_worker.c (127)]: wc_get_worker_for_name, done found a worker >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (471)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (300)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (651)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (536)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >> >[jk_ajp13.c (346)]: Into ajp13_marshal_into_msgb >> >[jk_ajp13.c (480)]: ajp13_marshal_into_msgb - Done >> >[jk_connect.c (108)]: Into jk_open_socket >> >[jk_connect.c (115)]: jk_open_socket, try to connect socket = 8 >> >[jk_connect.c (124)]: jk_open_socket, after connect ret = 0 >> >[jk_connect.c (132)]: jk_open_socket, set TCP_NODELAY to on >> >[jk_connect.c (140)]: jk_open_socket, return, sd = 8 >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (166)]: In >> >jk_endpoint_t::connect_to_tomcat, connected >> >sd = 8 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (527)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: status = 200 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (534)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Number of >headers is = 1 >> >[jk_ajp13.c (576)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Header[0] >> >[Content-Type] = >> >[text/html] >> >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (489)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done >> >[jk_lb_worker.c (378)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done >> > >> > >> > >> >Greethings, Thomas >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Dreaming of a Swiss Account? Get it here: http://freemail.swissinfo.org > >
RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
Hello Henri, hello Thomas, The problem comes from the call to fdatasync in the logging code of mod_jk. I already mentioned this to Dan Milstein. It should really be checked, if that way of flushing to the physical disk (and not only to the file system cache which should be enough) is really needed. The problem becomed more important due to the fact, that the actual production release incorrectly documents the existence of a log level "warn". In 3.2.1 this does not exist. The header file for the logging declares only: #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_LEVEL 0 #define JK_LOG_INFO_LEVEL 1 #define JK_LOG_ERROR_LEVEL 2 #define JK_LOG_EMERG_LEVEL 3 #define JK_LOG_DEBUG_VERB "debug" #define JK_LOG_INFO_VERB"info" #define JK_LOG_ERROR_VERB "error" #define JK_LOG_EMERG_VERB "emerg" and if you use any undeclared log level (as e.g. warn) the code falls through to "debug". So using warn you actually produce tons of debug output, each line calling fdatasync to flush to disk. We had the same problem on the first day of a heavy load production system and had some hard hours to find out. I think the second point (incorrect log level "warn") is corrected in the next release (by changing documentation and default - not code), the first thing, throwing out fdatasync - should still be done. Greetings, Rainer Jung At 10:54 20.04.01 , you wrote: >Could you be more explicit. > >OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version > >Thanks > >- >Henri Gomez ___[_] >EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) >PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... >PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > > > > >I encountered the following problem: > >Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via > >apache, compared > >to a direct access. > > > >The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of > >mod_jk to error > >instead of warn(as proposed). > > > >httpd.conf: > >JkLogLevel error > > > > > >Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. > > > >This is the logoutput for out simple request if > >JkLogLevel warn: > > > >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (344)]: Into > >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker > >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (406)]: > >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker, Found > >a match loadbalancer > >[jk_worker.c (123)]: Into wc_get_worker_for_name loadbalancer > >[jk_worker.c (127)]: wc_get_worker_for_name, done found a worker > >[jk_lb_worker.c (471)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint > >[jk_lb_worker.c (300)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service > >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (651)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint > >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (536)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service > >[jk_ajp13.c (346)]: Into ajp13_marshal_into_msgb > >[jk_ajp13.c (480)]: ajp13_marshal_into_msgb - Done > >[jk_connect.c (108)]: Into jk_open_socket > >[jk_connect.c (115)]: jk_open_socket, try to connect socket = 8 > >[jk_connect.c (124)]: jk_open_socket, after connect ret = 0 > >[jk_connect.c (132)]: jk_open_socket, set TCP_NODELAY to on > >[jk_connect.c (140)]: jk_open_socket, return, sd = 8 > >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (166)]: In > >jk_endpoint_t::connect_to_tomcat, connected > >sd = 8 > >[jk_ajp13.c (527)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: status = 200 > >[jk_ajp13.c (534)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Number of headers is = 1 > >[jk_ajp13.c (576)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Header[0] > >[Content-Type] = > >[text/html] > >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (489)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done > >[jk_lb_worker.c (378)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done > > > > > > > >Greethings, Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > >Dreaming of a Swiss Account? Get it here: http://freemail.swissinfo.org > >
RE: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache
Could you be more explicit. OS, mod_jk version, tomcat version, apache version Thanks - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:52 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Tomcat mod_jk very slow if used with apache > > >I encountered the following problem: >Tomcat was about 20 times slower if the access went via >apache, compared >to a direct access. > >The solution was the following: I had to put the loglevel of >mod_jk to error >instead of warn(as proposed). > >httpd.conf: >JkLogLevel error > > >Mod_jk does not seem to be a quick logger. > >This is the logoutput for out simple request if >JkLogLevel warn: > >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (344)]: Into >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker >[jk_uri_worker_map.c (406)]: >jk_uri_worker_map_t::map_uri_to_worker, Found >a match loadbalancer >[jk_worker.c (123)]: Into wc_get_worker_for_name loadbalancer >[jk_worker.c (127)]: wc_get_worker_for_name, done found a worker >[jk_lb_worker.c (471)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >[jk_lb_worker.c (300)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (651)]: Into jk_worker_t::get_endpoint >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (536)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::service >[jk_ajp13.c (346)]: Into ajp13_marshal_into_msgb >[jk_ajp13.c (480)]: ajp13_marshal_into_msgb - Done >[jk_connect.c (108)]: Into jk_open_socket >[jk_connect.c (115)]: jk_open_socket, try to connect socket = 8 >[jk_connect.c (124)]: jk_open_socket, after connect ret = 0 >[jk_connect.c (132)]: jk_open_socket, set TCP_NODELAY to on >[jk_connect.c (140)]: jk_open_socket, return, sd = 8 >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (166)]: In >jk_endpoint_t::connect_to_tomcat, connected >sd = 8 >[jk_ajp13.c (527)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: status = 200 >[jk_ajp13.c (534)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Number of headers is = 1 >[jk_ajp13.c (576)]: ajp13_unmarshal_response: Header[0] >[Content-Type] = >[text/html] >[jk_ajp13_worker.c (489)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done >[jk_lb_worker.c (378)]: Into jk_endpoint_t::done > > > >Greethings, Thomas > > > > > >Dreaming of a Swiss Account? Get it here: http://freemail.swissinfo.org >
