ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:22 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: tld processing performance at startup
Setup a META-INF/context.xml inside your app
And check Tim's tipps :-)
regards
Peter
Tim Funk schrieb:
There is an option to disable TLD processin
/ScreenshotServer.jsp ?
This is totally new to me so I appreciate your patience with a no0b!
Cheers.
Bradley
-Original Message-
From: Peter Rossbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:22 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: tld processing performance at startup
Setup a META
unzipped directory rather
than a war file so we can update stuff faster (copy some jar files,
stop/start). Auto reload is not compatible with our web app so we
don't have that enabled.
This web log post:
http://www.webweavertech.com/costin/archives/000164.html suggests
that the reason for the
eload is
not compatible with our web app so we don't have that enabled.
This web log post:
http://www.webweavertech.com/costin/archives/000164.html suggests that
the reason for the poor performance may be a design flaw in the jsp spec
which makes it necessary to do a lot of work. The ideal way wou
stin/archives/000164.html suggests that
the reason for the poor performance may be a design flaw in the jsp spec
which makes it necessary to do a lot of work. The ideal way would be for
the tld descriptors to always be in the META-INF directory. However, the
spec doesn't require this and t
u just push all the traffic straight through anyway,
we decided not
to put Apache between our users and our Tomcat servers.
If I didn't need to use re-writes, and complicated rules on our
apaches, I would also
use THTTP for performance reasons.
Andrew
On Sep 16, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Pe
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:52, Mark Thomas wrote:
> KEREM ERKAN wrote:
> > Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
> > than Apache (for now).
>
> I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;)
I will certainly document how to fix my problem onc
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:50, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC
> 5.0 and Apache 2.0
>
> If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal
> with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk
OK, that's u
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:29, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> KEREM ERKAN wrote:
> > Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat
>
> better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking
> about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to
> that Apache is
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:53 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
>
> KEREM ERKAN wrote:
> > Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far wo
Well since I don't understand German, I don't konw how he tested.
However in my stress testing which lots of static and JSPs, I found
Apache + mod_jk performance is a littlle higher than TOMCAT only. I
configured Apache with mod_cache.
So I think only handling JSPs, TC only could be b
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
than Apache (for now).
I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;)
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
> -Original Message-
> From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:49 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Cc: KEREM ERKAN
> Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
>
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300
> KEREM ERKA
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300
KEREM ERKAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Well, mod_jk > 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress
> > tested. The
> > > tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test
> > results,
> > > because we have been using 1.2.10 for several month
> > Well, mod_jk > 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress
> tested. The
> > tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test
> results,
> > because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe
> I can send
> > them when I test 1.2.14.
> >
> I'm interested in such test
So, I think your solution with F5 BigIPs->Tomcat is equivalent to the solution
with Apache/mod_jk->Tomcat
But the last is free
and I don't know the difference in performances between the 2 solutions.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:14:01 +0200
Andrew Miehs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We run F5 BigIPs as
5.5 can be found
at:
http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/
The Apache Tomcat team.
-
> Cheers,
>
> Kerem
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM
> > To: T
ion. Is there a
1.2.14 really or did you write 14 by mistake?
Cheers,
Kerem
> -Original Message-
> From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Cc: KEREM ERKAN
> Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
>
We run F5 BigIPs as our loadbalancers, and have seperated images, etc
onto another server
IE: i.domain.com for images, and www.domain.com for dynamic content.
F5 provides a feature call iRules to do the splitting between hosts
for you, but I would
NOT use this on a high traffic site.
Andre
But, in a web site, there is never only JSPs : there is a lot of static files
(images, css, js, ...)
So, if you don't have a apache in the frontend to deliver theses static files,
there is an overload for the TC server...
So, your tests stressed only light JSPs or a real site ?
and what is your
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08 +0300
KEREM ERKAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mod_jk > 1.2.10 had some performance problems
> but I did not thoroughly test why.
Is is proved ? Where do you find this ?
I tested mod_jk 1.2.14 (but not stressed it) and it seems to be a good
version.
We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC
5.0 and Apache 2.0
If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal
with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk
Andrew
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote:
I use Apa
000
"marc ratun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that
> apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
>
> This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease wit
> -Original Message-
> From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:30 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
>
> KEREM ERKAN wrote:
> > Apache has better directory/file restricting
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat
better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking
about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to
that Apache is not?
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL P
Apache is easier to configure, but at a 50% performance hit for pure
JSP pages
Andrew
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:18 PM, KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than
Tomcat, it is
more customizable and it is much user/admin friendly to
configure
harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
than Apache (for now).
Best regards,
Kerem
> -Original Message-
> From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:13 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: mod
Kerem,
You are probably right, I personnaly never faced any issues with any of
them.
However, Tom can you be more specific about the type of traffic your app
has to serve and what are performance/response time requirements.
Hardware and network, server and JVM configuration can also be either a
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
... I am looking to the security side of the problem and
Apache+mod_jk does its job better than only Tomcat concerning security.
How so?
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com
marc ratun wrote:
Hi,
I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that
apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with
apache/mod_jk would be marginal.
Why would that be sad?
30
AFAIK mod_proxy performs worse than mod_jk.
Just my 2 cents.
Kerem
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re:
Marc
If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk , you could
try other alternatives and still keep apache in front to serve static
content and use other modules.
You can use apache mod_proxy to forward request on 8080 [or whatever your
run tomcat on] to tomcat without going
stress tested Apache+Tomcat and only Tomcat and it seems like %30 is
too high. I can suggest using mod_jk 1.2.10 with Tomcat 5.5.9, surprisingly
you get very similar results. Mod_jk > 1.2.10 had some performance problems
but I did not thoroughly test why.
I hope this may help a little.
Che
Hi,
I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that
apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with
apache/mod_jk would be marginal.
Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I
proxy_ajp is mod_jk successor in Apache2.1/2.2 core.
You can find more info:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_proxy.html
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_proxy_ajp.html
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html
Thx, Xuekun
On 8/17/05, Christine Ho <[EMAIL PROTE
Hi,
Can somebody tell me what the difference between
the proxy_ajp and mod_jk is.
thanks,
Christine
--- Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xuekun Hu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >>From performance point, which connector will be
> used for TOMCAT
> > intergration
Xuekun Hu wrote:
Hi,
From performance point, which connector will be used for TOMCAT
intergration with Apache? proxy_ajp or mod_jk?
I read some docs which said mod_jk should have better performance than
proxying. While proxy_ajp in Apache2.1 is an addition to the mod_proxy
and uses Tomcat&#
Hi,
>From performance point, which connector will be used for TOMCAT
intergration with Apache? proxy_ajp or mod_jk?
I read some docs which said mod_jk should have better performance than
proxying. While proxy_ajp in Apache2.1 is an addition to the mod_proxy
and uses Tomcat's AJP protoc
to is that performance on a POST request is
abysmal, while GET requests is just fine. As seen here:
ab -n 1000 http://localhost/tomcat/test
Time taken for tests: 0.300519 seconds
Requests per second:3327.58 [#/sec] (mean)
ab -p testpost -n 1000 http://localhost/tomcat/test
Time taken
e response time
(both total average response time and per-servlet average response time)?
Thanks,
Hossein
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Lin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:18 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: monitoring performance
>
&
you can easily setup JMeter to monitor tomcat and save the results to a log.
peter lin
On 6/17/05, Hossein S. Attar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to instruemnt Tomcat to collect statistics such as
> averasge response time (for each servlet), etc and then somehow get
> the
Hi:
Is it possible to instruemnt Tomcat to collect statistics such as
averasge response time (for each servlet), etc and then somehow get
these statistics programatically (e.g., using an API). I'm trying to
write a program that needs to get such statistics, therefore monitoring
tools that re
M
> To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Poor Performance Tomcat5.5.7, Apache2.0.52, Solaris 9
>
> I am hoping someone has experienced this before.
>
> The installation is a binary install of Tomcat and a binary
> install of mod_jk 1.2.6 connector.
>
> We have been
I am hoping someone has experienced this before.
The installation is a binary install of Tomcat and a binary install of mod_jk
1.2.6 connector.
We have been running performance tests on this install and Tomcat is very, very
cpu intensive topping out at 55% of the cpu's on the box. I
using JspC from the command line.
>
> trimSpaces is there... but not genStrAsCharArray.
>
> Its in the source but it just doesn't have a command line option.
>
> 1... does it make sense for me to just recompile my 5.5.4 production
> server with this enabled? Whats the per
ne realizes how many lines Jasper2
generates to setup the tag. Jasper2 does a much better job than
jasper1 in tomcat 4.0.x. If I remember correctly, jasper2 was first
released with jasper 4.1.x. The initial version of jasper2 fixed some
major performance issues like deeply nested try/catch and methods
the source but it just doesn't have a command line option.
1... does it make sense for me to just recompile my 5.5.4 production
server with this enabled? Whats the performance gain?
2. Can we make this an option in JspC moving forward? I don't see why
it can't be a command l
Remy Maucherat wrote:
For production configuration for Jasper, see:
http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.5-doc/jasper-howto.html#Production%20Configuration
Do you know offhand if genStrAsCharArray has to be passed to jspc? I
didn't notice this as one of the command line options in 5.5
Remy Maucherat wrote:
It will obviously use more CPU and make more API calls. However, it
does not allocate any objects, but instead will reuse per page objects
(which is very fast). So overall, it sounds weird to me that the
bottleneck would be on tag invocation.
In the end, it's hard to beat
Peter Lin wrote:
Back in 2002, I wrote several pages using JSP + java and JSP + JSTL to
measure the actual cost of from a performance perspective. The
performance difference isn't noticeable if a page has less than 50
tags. With 200+ tags, the performance difference does range from 2-5x
s
a big
performance hit when development is set to "true" btw.
I'll try to play with the above setting... thanks.
Kevin
--
Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator)! - visit http://rojo.com.
See irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.
Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/Jobs
Peng Tuck Kwok wrote:
Just to check are your precompiling the jsp page?
Yes... we're precompiling them before we deploy. I'd recommend most
people do that if they have the time.
Kevin
--
Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator)! - visit http://rojo.com.
See irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want t
Dakota Jack wrote:
You have to be and are comparing apples and oranges, Kevin,
Perhaps... but my point was that JSP 2.0 doesn't HAVE to be this slow! :)
because
JSP *is* Java. DOH! It cannot run slower than what it is.
No.. it could run slower... I'm sure the Tomcat developers will find
ting JSTL, it's pretty clear it's
> > using much more memory and causing more GC. The performance you see is
> > the result of JSTL using more memory.
>
> It will obviously use more CPU and make more API calls. However, it
> does not allocate any objects, but instead will reus
at how
> > many classes are involved in executing JSTL, it's pretty clear it's
> > using much more memory and causing more GC. The performance you see is
> > the result of JSTL using more memory.
>
> It will obviously use more CPU and make more API calls. Howeve
e memory and causing more GC. The performance you see is
> the result of JSTL using more memory.
It will obviously use more CPU and make more API calls. However, it
does not allocate any objects, but instead will reuse per page objects
(which is very fast). So overall, it sounds weird to me that
see already, using JSTL means a single line of code gets
converted to several lines of JSTL api calls. once you look at how
many classes are involved in executing JSTL, it's pretty clear it's
using much more memory and causing more GC. The performance you see is
the result of JSTL using m
On 5/28/05, Kevin Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been tuning our application trying to get the maximum performance
> out if the system as possible.
>
> I've been throwing the system at jprofiler and allowing it to tell me
> where to optimized.
>
>
parameters of the test situation.
On 5/28/05, Peng Tuck Kwok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to check are your precompiling the jsp page?
>
> On 5/28/05, Kevin Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been tuning our application trying to get the maximum perf
Just to check are your precompiling the jsp page?
On 5/28/05, Kevin Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been tuning our application trying to get the maximum performance
> out if the system as possible.
>
> I've been throwing the system at jprofiler and allow
blem with JSP and
JSP is not a dog if used properly. That's all I have to say about
that.
On 5/27/05, Kevin Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been tuning our application trying to get the maximum performance
> out if the system as possible.
>
> I've b
I've been tuning our application trying to get the maximum performance
out if the system as possible.
I've been throwing the system at jprofiler and allowing it to tell me
where to optimized.
In short Tomcat is slower than our DB, filesystem,. network and all
other systems b
List
Subject: Re: isapi_redirect performance issues
I did the packet trace and here is some more information:
There are more packets with IIS as compared to Apache – with IIS the response
body is in a separate packet than the packet containing the Status Code 200 and
also I see "HTT
2005 3:19 pm
Subject: isapi_redirect performance issues
> We are using Tomcat 5.5.9 with IIS on the front end. IIS is
> serving all
> the static content and forwards the servlet requests to Tomcat
> using
> the latest version of isapi_redirect.dll and ajp13 protocol. After
> depl
noticing 8x to 10x performance slowdown when connecting
to the application via port 80 as opposed to the direct port 8080. I
tried using Apache WebServer in front instead of IIS and that works
great – the performance problem is ONLY when using IIS in the front.
Unfortunately my application has to be
Dakota Jack wrote:
Why don't you break it down and find out where the time is going?
So in summary.. now that I'm suspicious that its a tag instantiation
issue I'm going to load up the webapp with FULL instrumentation... its
about 8x slower but I think I'll need that level of granularity here.
op of
> >: it
> >
> >What does your profiler report?
> >
> >-QM
> >
> >
> >
> I can't for the life of me figure it out!
>
> It certainly reports that doTag is taking a LOT of time but not WHY its
> taking a lot of time.
>
&g
e but not WHY its
taking a lot of time.
Its reporting that reflection is hurting performance but this is only
about 200ms vs 2500ms for the tag stuff.
So I might have been wrong that Reflection is causing the problem and it
MIGHT be a problem with the tag constructor or some other issue whi
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 02:19:15PM -0700, Kevin Burton wrote:
: So its clearly not JUST reflected methods its something else on top of
: it
What does your profiler report?
-QM
--
software -- http://www.brandxdev.net/
tech news -- http://www.RoarNetworX.com/
code scan -- http://www.JxR
To execute a tag file requires creating some new objects which migh have an
overhead not quite comparable to RequestDispatcher.include()
Thats probably the issue.
-Tim
Kevin Burton wrote:
Tim Funk wrote:
Its not reflection killing you. For example, time this:
<%=System.currentTimeMillis()%>
${
Tim Funk wrote:
Its not reflection killing you. For example, time this:
<%=System.currentTimeMillis()%>
${more.cowbell}
<%=System.currentTimeMillis()%>
Where more is any java object and cowbell is a property
(getCowbell()). In simple timing trials - even where iterations is
greater than 2000
Its not reflection killing you. For example, time this:
<%=System.currentTimeMillis()%>
${more.cowbell}
<%=System.currentTimeMillis()%>
Where more is any java object and cowbell is a property (getCowbell()). In
simple timing trials - even where iterations is greater than 2000 - I get
subsecon
Dakota Jack wrote:
Why would you have to have an entirely new "reflection" for more than
one database call? That sound like a design SNAFU to me. Looks to me
like you should be having one use of reflection instead of 1000.
I don't have to have it. Tomcat is *doing* it. Forget the DB. If I
h
Why would you have to have an entirely new "reflection" for more than
one database call? That sound like a design SNAFU to me. Looks to me
like you should be having one use of reflection instead of 1000.
Jack
On 4/17/05, Kevin Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dakota Jack wrote:
>
> >1000 on
Dakota Jack wrote:
1000 on a page? Really? That seems very odd to me given my
experience. What would a page like that look like? Do you have
examples?
So psuedo code...
- get a list of objects from your DB.. Say 500
- for each object
tag A
tag B
tag C
fn:length
And so forth... That
x27;s done?
> >
> >
> >
> Well I think I'm going to have to review all forms of code that cause
> this and rewrite them.
>
> The BIGGEST problem as I currently see it is with .tag files. These use
> reflection but I can't figure out a way to rewrite them
rite them.
I think if i were to do this it would yield DRAMATIC performance
improvements.
The REAL issue is that enabling developers to shoot themselves in the
foot like this is really irresponsible and probably needs to be removed
or a HUGE warning be placed before examples.
Kevin
--
Use Ro
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Kevin Burton wrote:
: We've had a few bottlenecks in our code that have since been removed but
: the remaining big bottleneck is Tomcat. The JSP engine is creating
: compiled code that is heavily relying on reflection.
: [snip]
:
: Is there ANY way to g
I've been spending this week running a profiler across our webapp and
Tomcat.
We've had a few bottlenecks in our code that have since been removed but
the remaining big bottleneck is Tomcat. The JSP engine is creating
compiled code that is heavily relying on reflection. Reflection
shouldn't
CHESS-CODE:s04hchmi42m2t3k3s41ktl27o8s9c9pa8b9c0c8cpt8dge8v2voo0
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Tomcat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peter Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Tomcat Users List"
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Performa
Somewhere one does cross the hazy Heisenberg uncertainty principal line,
i.e. noticeably impacting performance by trying to hard to measure
performance...
--
Jess Holle
e wrote:
http://mc4j.sourceforge.net/ScreenShots.html
On Apr 5, 2005 2:20 PM, Tony Tomcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I s
>
> peter
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2005 2:20 PM, Tony Tomcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I started writing a Filter for my tomcat to monitor performance but
> > then I started wondering.. Is there a solution already out there that
> > I can use? Can I pull data from
http://mc4j.sourceforge.net/ScreenShots.html
On Apr 5, 2005 2:20 PM, Tony Tomcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started writing a Filter for my tomcat to monitor performance but
> then I started wondering.. Is there a solution already out there that
> I can use? Can I pull dat
ore Tomcat instances.
so if you don't count the status servlet and tomcat, nothing exists :)
peter
On Apr 5, 2005 2:20 PM, Tony Tomcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started writing a Filter for my tomcat to monitor performance but
> then I started wondering.. Is there a solution
I started writing a Filter for my tomcat to monitor performance but
then I started wondering.. Is there a solution already out there that
I can use? Can I pull data from Tomcat's MBeanServer?
What I would like to know is how long my servlets are taking to run.
I need the Min, Max and Av
All,
I am wondering if anyone out there has any experience with tuning
Tomcat to improve performance in high latency (~700ms) environments?
I've basically just been experimenting and learning what I can from
the available resources on the web but there doesn't seem to be much
out
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:52:37AM -0600, sudip shrestha wrote:
: I would like to know if there is significant performance improvement
: from 5.0.x to 5.5.x. Is there some sort of relative performance study
: done by anybody?
Tomcat 5.5 is supposed to include several performance enhancements
look here
http://cvs.apache.org/~woolfel/tc_results.html
http://cvs.apache.org/~woolfel/benchmark_summary.doc
peter
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:52:37 -0600, sudip shrestha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to know if there is significant performance improvement
> from 5.0.x t
I would like to know if there is significant performance improvement
from 5.0.x to 5.5.x. Is there some sort of relative performance study
done by anybody?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e
in this case you'll get out of your servlet faster - but it still
ddesn't answer about is 400ms for email to be send is a good value.
--- xand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I do normally is start a separate Thread called
> MailSenderWorker,
> this object is the responsible for sending emails
What I do normally is start a separate Thread called MailSenderWorker,
this object is the responsible for sending emails. You lose some control
over the process (suppose that peer was unreacheable (bad address, for
example), you will not be able to show an error message to your client.
But when
Hi,
My servlet sends an email using Authentication to mail server.
It took 400ms to send one small ( 3K text )e-mail. Does anybody know
if it fast enough for 3MB/800Kb network ? Is there any way to make it faster?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:12:06 -, Varley, Roger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > For reasons beyond my control, a web application
> > (apache/Tomcat/PostgreSQL) that I support will need to be partitioned
> > into one context per customer (to support one database per customer).
> > I'm wondering
>
> For reasons beyond my control, a web application
> (apache/Tomcat/PostgreSQL) that I support will need to be partitioned
> into one context per customer (to support one database per customer).
> I'm wondering:
>
Do you really need one database per customer? In a similair situation, we
resol
x27;m wondering:
>
> 1. What the performance implications are (if any) of having up to 300
> contexts in one container?
With Tomcat 5.x, it's ok, it will just use more memory. With 4.x, it's
bad (one background thread per context = 300 background threads).
> 2. Are there any
customer, or just one datasource
definition per customer? If you can share, what's the reasoning behind
this?
: 1. What the performance implications are (if any) of having up to 300
: contexts in one container?
Depends mostly on your hardware (memory, CPU, network bandwidth per
host), attitude to
For reasons beyond my control, a web application
(apache/Tomcat/PostgreSQL) that I support will need to be partitioned
into one context per customer (to support one database per customer).
I'm wondering:
1. What the performance implications are (if any) of having up to 300
contexts i
The jakarta JMeter monitor sends requests to Tomcat's status servlet
and uses the stats there to generate a performance graph. You can
monitor multiple servers with jmeter.
If you use a third party tool, it will have lots of other features,
but it most likely will not be able to utilize the
Hari Mailvaganam wrote:
Hi:
What would be the best way to monitor the performance of Tomcat -
while in production?
I have used /manager application and JMeter. Not in production but
during performace tests and development servers. I am not sure is this
best way but for my purpose it is pretty ok
you could use jmeter's tomcat5 monitor. there's a coupl of commercial
tools out there that can monitor your production servers.
peter
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:27:05 -0800, Hari Mailvaganam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> What would be the best way to monitor
1 - 100 of 1103 matches
Mail list logo
