On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:39:36 -0700 (PDT), David Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the keepalive is used mainly for making the 'state' out of
> > 'stateless' protocol, and it's main advantage is that you don't need
> > to acquire a new connection all the time. Tak
Andrew Miehs wrote:
> A connection pool of 750 threads seems unusable... How can 1 thread per
> connection scale? or have I misunderstood how tomcat uses its
> connection pool? And should all of these threads ever have something to
> do at the same time, the box would just fall over with a load of
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> Yes, but the keepalive is used mainly for making the 'state' out of
> 'stateless' protocol, and it's main advantage is that you don't need
> to acquire a new connection all the time. Take a look at RFC2068.
> Even apache keeps the thread open on keepalive connections (Of cour
sounds like your goal is to maximize the number of connections to
tomcat while reducing the threads. Would that be an accurate
assesment?
if that is the case, then I would recommend not using servlets at all.
about the only way to do that would be to use a server which
multiplexes n connections t
Andrew Miehs wrote:
3. putting the images on a dedicated image server
Already being done. 2x Servers running apache - which also have this
keep-alive problem. Running 1000 threads per server is NOT my idea of a
good time. I will be having a look at a couple of other alternatives to
apache over t
On 29.10.2004, at 19:08, Peter Lin wrote:
if you're looking for better client performance I would explore other
areas first.
1. use gzip compression - this can reduce the html to 1/10th the size.
your mileage will vary.
This is being looked at - loadbalancer vrs tomcat
2. caching results on the we
if you're looking for better client performance I would explore other
areas first.
1. use gzip compression - this can reduce the html to 1/10th the size.
your mileage will vary.
2. caching results on the web-tier
3. putting the images on a dedicated image server
4. distributing your servers acr
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:45:15 +0200, Andrew Miehs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
>
> I have not read the Servlet Spec, so please pardon my ignorance.
> (Definitely do not mean to offend). What I still haven't had clearly
> answered is:
>
> User A sends request (with keepalive) to tomcat. To
Hi Peter,
I am not using keep-alives to keep session persistence, but was rather
hoping for better client performance. Using keep-alives saves creating
a tcp connection for each request - and thereby saving 3 tcp packets
(and roundtrip times) per request.
Andrew
On 29.10.2004, at 17:53, Peter L
Hi Filip,
Is this how you disable keep-alive on tomcat?
maxKeepAliveRequests="1"
or is there another switch that I am missing..
On 29.10.2004, at 17:49, Filip Hanik - Dev wrote:
turn off keep alive
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
Peter Lin wrote:
mladen makes a good point. the sites I've worked on, we left the
keepalive up to the browser and didn't explicitly disable keepalive.
the sites I've worked on we simply used hardware load balancer to make
sure the session goes to the right server.
Correct.
The keepalive is usuall
mladen makes a good point. the sites I've worked on, we left the
keepalive up to the browser and didn't explicitly disable keepalive.
the sites I've worked on we simply used hardware load balancer to make
sure the session goes to the right server.
that is usually enough from my experience. my bia
turn off keep alive
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Miehs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Tomcat in a High Traffic Environment
Hi Yoav,
I have not read the S
The loadbalancer forwards the packet to tomcat, and as such, tomcat
sees the keep-alive request.
If tomcat has keep-alive enabled, it will set up keep alive on its end.
Andrew
On 29.10.2004, at 17:31, Peter Lin wrote:
you don't need to use keepalive. generally, in a load balanced setup,
keepali
Hi Yoav,
I have not read the Servlet Spec, so please pardon my ignorance.
(Definitely do not mean to offend). What I still haven't had clearly
answered is:
User A sends request (with keepalive) to tomcat. Tomcat assigns request
to thread (T1).
Tomcat sends result back. Is thread T1 now kept res
Peter Lin wrote:
you don't need to use keepalive. generally, in a load balanced setup,
keepalive is disabled because the load balancer is already making sure
the user goes to the same webserver for the life time of the session.
keepalive is usually set in the HTTP header by the client, so I don't
you don't need to use keepalive. generally, in a load balanced setup,
keepalive is disabled because the load balancer is already making sure
the user goes to the same webserver for the life time of the session.
keepalive is usually set in the HTTP header by the client, so I don't
think you need t
Hi,
>these keep-alive connections? Does it really keep 1 thread open for
>each keep-alive? this seems VERY unnecessary
Remember that the Servlet Spec mandates the Servlet Container service a
request with one thread, independent of the HTTP details. So before you
think we're clueless when it
Hi Peter,
The load balancer is an F5 and we are doing can do the balancing based
on JSESSIONID. At the moment we are doing persistence based on our own
cookie (Long story).
How did you disable keep-alives? maxKeepAliveRequests="1" ? Doesn't it
make more sense to use keep-alives? And what does t
if you're using hardware load balancer like cisco localdirector, I
would setup the load balancer to direct the traffic based on
sessionid.
this way, you don't need to use keep alive. when you say 8K
simultaneous users, what does that translate to in terms of concurrent
requests per second? An easy
20 matches
Mail list logo
