David, that is a good idea from far, far away :-)
Antivirus is enabled (I'm not suicidal, this is a Windows box ;) but according to the Windows performance viewer there is no bottleneck on the harddisk, it's always way under 10% load. Frank David Smith-2 wrote: > > I think a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I remember something > about antivirus impacting file I/O performance. Would your box happen > to have antivirus enabled? If so, any chance you could exclude your > logs from it and/or disable it for the purpose of a test? > > --David > > Frank Niedermann wrote: > >>Unfortunately I have to use Windows Server 2003 as the company behind the >>application we're using is not supporting UNIX/Linux. >> >>Windows also has performance utilities but they tell me that the server >>isn't heavily loaded at all. >> >>A good think would be to have a smaller access log just for statistics, like >>only one line per user access and not every file which transferred to the >>user (html, images, js and so on) ... >> >>Frank >> >> >>Tim Funk wrote: >> >> >>>Something seems odd with your system. I have pounded some tomcat >>>installations with old unix hardware with and without access logging and >>>could hardly tell the difference. >>> >>>In linux - i was able to tell more of a difference, but not enough to >>>turn off logging. >>> >>>I am at a loss of where the bottleneck is. If your using *nix - your >>>system should have some OS benchmarking to see disk utilization or other >>>potential bottlenecks. >>> >>>Good luck. >>> >>>-Tim >>> >>>Frank Niedermann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I've installed LambdaProbe and it tells me that there are not much >>>>Threads >>>>(about 50) and most of them are in state of waiting or timed_waiting. So >>>>that seems to be okay - but what if Tomcat sent the response to the first >>>>user request and then does the logging, while the next request or other >>>>users are waiting? >>>> >>>>And this: >>>>The log files are under 20 MB, that should be fine, shoundn't it? The >>>>disk >>>>is way far from beeing full and it's a RAID1 with SCSI disks so they >>>>should >>>>have enough performance. >>>> >>>>I'm now totally unsure if I should enable access.log-files (to have >>>>statistics with AWstats) or disable them (to have more performance) ... >>>> >>>>Frank >>>> >>>> >>>>Frank Niedermann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Tim, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Tim Funk wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Unless you are max'd on working threads - access logging should not be >>>>>>a >>>>>>performance hit. Access logging takes pace after the response is sent >>>>>>to >>>>>>the client. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>BUT if the access logs are big, AND you a re low on disk, AND/OR your >>>>>disk is SLOOOOW then that could be a problem. The overhead of logging >>>>>the access log is pretty low. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>The log files are under 20 MB, that should be fine, shoundn't it? The >>>>disk >>>>is way far from beeing full and it's a RAID1 with SCSI disks so they >>>>should >>>>have enough performance. >>>> >>>>I'm now totally unsure if I should enable access.log-files (to have >>>>statistics with AWstats) or disable them (to have more performance) ... >>>> >>>>Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-decreasing-if-access.log-enabled-tf2408485.html#a6717189 Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
