On 23/08/2011 21:37, Christopher Schultz wrote: > All, > > I've been using Tomcat fronted by Apache httpd (terminating SSL I > might add) for years and I've never given any thought to which > flavor of AJP connector I've been using. We don't build APR as part > of our standard build process and it's unclear from the docs but I > suspect you don't get NIO unless you specify that you want it. > > I guess that means I've been stuck in BIO-ville all this time. > > We're looking to upgrade to TC7 soon so I will have 3 options, > now. I'm wondering which one would be best for us. > > From my perspective, the most useful thing you get from both APR > and NIO is the ability to service more simultaneous requests than > you actually have threads, because of their polling capabilities. > That also means that a slow client won't tie-up a thread for a long > time. But, since I'm using AJP, there is a one-to-one relationship > between request processors at the httpd level and in Tomcat, so > being able to handle "more" requests doesn't sound like it's buying > me anything. I'm not sure how HTTP keepalives fit into all this, > but I suspect that mod_jk takes care of this and Tomcat has little > to no control over any of it.
Not quite correct. With BIO it is one thread/processor per connection. With NIO/APR it is one thread per currently processing request (i.e connections in keep-alive (HTTP or AJP) do not require a thread or processor). > So, what does either AJP or NIO buy me in an AJP environment? In short, NIO & APR will scale better. > We have no notable performance problems that do not involve > obvious application slowness, so BIO has been working fine for us. > I'm inclined to stick with it unless there are some compelling > reasons to switch. > > Any thoughts? If it ain't broke... Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
