I have solid numbers that I will e-mail in a follow up by itself so
it's not lossed in the shuffle.
Some answers to the comments inline.
Thanks,
Andy
Do you mean that Tomcat performance appears to be the same regardless
of version? That's both good and bad... I thought there were some
performance improvements to the connectors from 5.5-> 6.0. Maybe that
was 4.x->5.5.
Yeah, the download performance through AJP and through HTTP connectors
is fairly consistent from 5.5->6.0->7.0
Tomcat7 is using JDK 1.7 and this is interesting. The benchmarks
with tomcat7+jdk1.7 vary widely across the board (both through ajp
and direct http to tomcat) from 30s-40sMB/s. Java 1.6 seems alot
more consistent. Not sure why yet.
That is interesting. On the other hand, the server /is/ on a virtual
machine, and you never know what other processes are stealing focus.
Many VMs are notorious for bad IO throughput (I'm looking at you,
OpenVZ).
I'm using vmware 5 esxi servers on a pretty beefy system. 8 2.8ghz xeon
cores, 32gb memory and I'm only running a single VM at a time. Each VM
is allocated 4GB of memory and 2 cores. Should be more than enough to
handle serving up a 450MB iso file.
Have you tried bare hardware?
No, unfortunately I don't have access to bare hardware, but as I
mentioned, the vmware 5 esxi servers are pretty beefy.
How much control do you have over the VM server? Seems to me that
resources/performance could be not only affected by other VMs but also
intentionally throttled.
I have pretty much full control over the VM servers. There is no
throttling going on, no resource limits and as I said, I shut down all
the other VMs just to rule out contention with them.
Some tips for this kind of testing:
1. Don't run ab on localhost: all the numbers will be worthless
2. Run ab with a range of concurrencies, including c=1
3. Make /lots/ of requests. IMO, 5 requests is really a pinhole
analysis. I would make as many requests as you can over 10 minutes and
see what the throughput ends up being.
I actually ran localhost just out of curiosity and while the numbers are
faster, the performance difference is consistent with a remote host. I
don't want to make alot of requests. I want to see throughput of large
files becuase this is where we're seeing the slow downs. Concurrency is
not an issue.
I'll compare Windows XP performance and Windows 2008 performance
and after that I'll do the same on a Linux VM to get a better
comparison.
It will be good to see.
I decided to just do windows. The numbers I got are enough for me to
not care at this point.
I plan on doing both local ab requests as well as remote. The
problem with remote is that our network is busy, so it may account
for some variations but I don't think I can get our IT to segment
me anything for this purpose :(.
Just get a crossover cable and use static IP addresses.
Unfortunately no access to additional hardware.
I'm not so concerned about a 25% hit. I'm really more concerned
with the drop to 4-5MB/s over time that seems to happen.
Does this happen locally or only remotely? I wonder if you're hitting
some kind of traffic-shaping or QOS rules on your own internal network.
This type of hit occurs for our customers both locally and remotely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
