-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To whom it may concern,
On 1/27/12 6:35 PM, bxqdev wrote: >>>>> 10'000 req/sec 300Kb/response That should be just under 3GiB (gigabyte) per second response, not 3Gb (gigabit). >>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec Is that in gigabits or gigabytes per second? >> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was? Agreed. > well, we are getting too far from the subject. can you make up 3 > cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api 1. bio > connector + async servlet 2. nio connector + sync servlet 3. nio > connector + async servlet Use of the async APIs only makes sense if your application's architecture lends itself to asynchronous communication. If you are serving static(ish) content, for instance, async doesn't make any sense. You can of course mix and match async and any of the connectors. If you want decent performance and resource management, you should use something other than the BIO connector. > i mean in which theoretical case each combination of > connector+servlet api is the best choice? I would use either NIO or APR and the choice of async can only be answered by your own architecture. >> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you >> found CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not? > > why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server? Lots of reasons. Performance, for one. > actually we don't have any problems to solve. Sounds like a good position to be in. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8oWKAACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDpRQCfTyAwcO3i6j9vgoTEgBslJVTz 2dMAoJkbCcE71g9V5T3M65+AXZfaVumB =N8YV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
