[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Index: ByteBufferAccessLogValve.java
===
/*
* Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
* SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
*/
I noticed this ;)
Can
jfarcand2004/11/22 07:16:24
Modified:catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
ByteBufferAccessLogValve.java
Log:
Remove wrong copyright.
Revision ChangesPath
1.3 +0 -5
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Without access log valve, we are 20% faster. With the ByteBuffer one,
13%.
There are 3 access log valves ;) Maybe you should give a chart.
I did formally benchmark
+ FastCommonAccessLogValve
+ ByteBufferAccessLogValve
I didn't bother about
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Yes, I can explore that. I will re-add the writerThread for now since
the current implementation doesn't work since the byteBuffer will
never be flushed. This is temporary. Again, consider this valve as
exploration.
I do agree to some extent with the rest (except
jfarcand2004/11/22 08:31:04
Modified:catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
ByteBufferAccessLogValve.java
Log:
Re-add the writer thread since the valve doesn't work properly without it.
This is temporary.
Revision ChangesPath
1.4
jfarcand2004/11/22 08:40:53
Removed: catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
ByteBufferAccessLogValve.java
Log:
Remove experimental works.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Yes, I can explore that. I will re-add the writerThread for now since
the current implementation doesn't work since the byteBuffer will
never be flushed. This is temporary. Again, consider this valve as
exploration.
I do agree to some extent
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Yes, I can explore that. I will re-add the writerThread for now
since the current implementation doesn't work since the byteBuffer
will never be flushed. This is temporary. Again, consider this valve
as exploration.
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
Without access log valve, we are 20% faster. With the ByteBuffer one,
13%.
There are 3 access log valves ;) Maybe you should give a chart.
I'll do my byte based improvements (to be able to save on char to byte)
in your implementation.
The buffer isn't big enough. 16k
I never thought about it this way, but can the comparisons be made by using
and not using Keep-Alive? I would guess that if Keep-alive is used - there
would be a performance gain since the same thread needs to wait for the valve
to write its log entry, before the next item in keep alive request
jfarcand2004/11/19 08:46:27
Modified:catalina/src/conf server.xml
catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
mbeans-descriptors.xml
Added: catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jfarcand2004/11/19 08:46:27
Modified:catalina/src/conf server.xml
catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
mbeans-descriptors.xml
Added: catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
Remy Maucherat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jfarcand2004/11/19 08:46:27
Modified:catalina/src/conf server.xml
catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
mbeans-descriptors.xml
Added: catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina/valves
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
BTW, there's no way you get +13% over the fast access logger, since
it has about 6% overhead on a static file test (compared with 25-30%
for the normal one) ;)
Well, it approx. 20% without valve.
I can't understand what you mean here.
Rémy
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jean-Francois Arcand wrote:
BTW, there's no way you get +13% over the fast access logger, since
it has about 6% overhead on a static file test (compared with 25-30%
for the normal one) ;)
Well, it approx. 20% without valve.
I can't understand what you mean here.
Without
15 matches
Mail list logo
