Hi Jason,
First, it's really great to see the discussions about performance !
Your tests are extremely usefull
I use ab and apache very often ( I used it as the main tool to tune tomcat
3.2 and now 3.3 ). One thing that strikes me is the fact that I have a
slower computer ( Celeron / 363 ) my numbers for apache ( with -c 60 ) are
usually much smaller. ( it happens that I used the same test while
rewriting the static servlet to StaticInterceptor )
I did another run, here is the sumarry:
( ab -c 60 -n 10000 http://localhost/index.html):
- Apache 1.3.12 - DEFAULT CONFIG, no change:
First run: RPS: 344.44
Total: 67 172 637
Second run: RPS: 363.40
Total: 85 163 268
- Apache 1.3.12 - your config file
First run: RPS: 261.27
Total: 105 228 477
Second run: RPS: 253.63
Total: 81 234 402
- Tomcat 3.3 - IBM JDK1.3
First run: RPS: 276.07
Total: 46 216 3265
Second: RPS: 345.55
Total: 17 172 228
- Tomcat 3.3 - Hotspot
First: RPS: 287.5
Total: 53 206 764
Second: RPS: 308
Total: 42 193 1134
( after another run the number get lower - almost same as IBM1.3 )
Of course, tomcat3.3 is not yet completely tuned, and static file handling
is still far away from what it should be. Also, note that neither apache
nor tomcat3.3 will cache the file - you should use MMapFile to compare
with a container that uses caching. ( that adds about 20% performance to
apache - since Linux is also caching the file accesses are not a very big
factor )( BTW, last Apache2.0 I tried was almost 2x faster than 1.3 )
Costin
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jason Brittain wrote:
>
> I wrote up a text file about benchmarking and comparing Tomcat-4.0-M5
> (pre-release)
> and Apache 1.3.12. It's attached to this message. I wrote it for
> anyone who is interested
> (even non-Java-saavy people) to know how the raw content serving
> performance of
> Catalina and its built-in web server compares to that of Apache 1.3.12.
> It contains lots of
> information to help people understand some of the important differences
> between the two
> servers.
>
> Feedback, flames, reproduced test results, etc. are welcome! :)
>
> Cheers.
>
>
