-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hernán,
On 7/10/14, 11:19 AM, doomito wrote: > Hi! I already did some testing. First of all, setting the > connectiontimeout was not a good idea :) While the servers seems to > be able to handle the same load, the load average went up. Interesting... load average is a crude measure of activity; I suppose that having those timeouts means that there is activity on a thread even when there is no real "work" to be done. I do recommend leaving the timeouts set to their defaults (-1 = infinite). > It is very very interesting what you mention regarding mod_proxy > being faster than mod_jk / mod_proxyAJP. So if I understood > correctly, mod_proxy should be a much better option for a high > traffic site? even with APACHE in front of it? If you are going to use Apache httpd out in front, our benchmarking suggests that mod_proxy_http is the highest-performing of the 3 connectors (mod_proxy_ajp, mod_proxy_http, and mod_jk). For these tests, we did not configure with a production-quality SSL configuration, which would allow Tomcat to pick-up the client's certificate and all other SSL-related information (e.g. cipher, key size, ssl session id, etc.). You should do your own benchmarking with such a configuration, using your own load profiles. Our testing only performed static file fetches. > I came across with article which is interesting. > http://www.blakerobertson.com/devlog/2012/2/7/performance-comparison-mod_jk-vs-mod_proxy_ajp-for-apache-22.html That > /is/ interesting... the performance testing we did was all on RedHat Linux, and I've found that Linux and Windows have wildly differing performance characteristics, especially when it comes to network-related stuff. It's strange that, in Blake's testing, he saw the JVM use more resources when using mod_proxy_ajp than mod_jk since it's the same data, the same protocol, and the same Java code running in both cases. I think his data smells a little suspicious due to that particular observation. Also, mod_jk is *highly* configurable, while mod_proxy offers fewer options. I believe it's possible to tune mod_jk more finely if necessary. I have always used mod_jk *except* when using httpd on Windows and Mac because of build problems. In those cases (always test rigs, since we are an all-Linux deployment in production), we use mod_proxy_ajp for simplicity of setup. All I can tell you is that you should benchmark your own application in your own environment, and not rely on anyone else's benchmarks to solely guide your decisions. > Regarding http, we use APACHE since we have quite a lot of rules. What kind of rules? > We also use mod_deflate, mod_expires and other apache modules. If you are getting a benefit from Apache httpd, then use it. If you are concerned about performance, you might want to look at options for removing it. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTvuQvAAoJEBzwKT+lPKRYksQP/1SN9eDDrAVBXjvL85iU68Dd 2lLK1hh170lAFMmcv1EU91oQp+Au8O8U1tI4yV5ujAR5m9yag8u5uluPAaaSrmyS TFpC7H4tXuQH+PhAz8HDNKIFTrDRInfCTMTugnZi/JpaK3GcNxB/aNvd3KAPqkTd LXpURvjmP0SelBLe7gaLCrxhCK3i6fmOCjiBxTOpMkzZJKibdOXGp+U80liHLvOj iaRHdOLIwYv7ORbGQRV5q3eu9KPxKcPg0O3YvtHiNEFZzz78kuINOXLocnV8FKWH KRzD7cn3Wfhd59+yyIph8ZXsbgMjnbx77koHvJZxU5OusRXCL4QtqsADN78uruW6 CxlCHymf33VkxoUsCdIPQCmCk4DnqxvpLggGFuR7wnJfVnHnVvzsw7EIKrt/rokW 7EZxUOunPvph8wyV1809TZUfM7fzIAQQZU6ODeBdT34tdwWl/gpdXji2pohsgthk v5atPhDFXj1/NAKUZ/8xaefF3MwejectbaMng5zaFlrXff+ioXvwXzV7Z5BNybzS SpisBKRjVc6BslE3xaMcw77TbaZWMgPFs4YX1jwVDorQwAIjGk2P1vYq1gBUB3Ta f/UMqcd1p8okeEW+XB3wP+YRM816TKKDZ0odrJdg95l68Qwde4340KGG4eTvYXdi 70Xodbrsl+2auGKuVALX =okxr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
