Peter Crowther wrote:
From: David kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net]
Also, right now I'm doing a .flush() after the .write() to the log
file. Is that usually necessary, other than to avoid losing
data lines in case of a system failure?
No, other than that.
What disk subsystem are you running on? Start Performance Monitor and, from
Physical Disks, monitor your disk writes per second. If it's over 150(ish,
depending on the disk) per spindle in your disk array, you're saturating your
disks.
I don't recall the exact disk configuration, but it's pretty robust and
on par with the rest of the system, because this server was originally
spec'd as a combination file and application server.
How would a
.flush() affect the speed of returning from a synchronized .write()?
It can be significant, as the data has to get to the file. I'd check the
above. Also, do you have any battery-backed write cache (BBWC) on the disk
subsystem and how's it configured? On systems where disk has proved to be the
bottleneck, and there are many small pieces of data being written, I've seen
better than a factor of 10 improvement by adding write cache in this way.
I'll look into that to be sure, but I don't think the HD is limiting.
D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
