Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger files). Does that sync with your understanding as well? -- Robin D. Wilson Director of Web Development KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc. WORK: 512-623-5913 CELL: 512-426-3929 www.KingsIsle.com -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:31 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes: - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5 - - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12 - - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10 - - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a certain number of requests I have some preliminary results. Just as a smoke-test, I ran my tests for 10 seconds each (10 seconds per file size, per server config) which means that I can get a complete set of results in 15 minutes. The results are borderline useless, but you can already start to see the different configurations differentiate themselves: File Size Apache httpd Coyote CoyoteAPR CoyoteAPR-sendfile CoyoteNIO CoyoteNIO–sendfile 4KiB 4984.02 3833.73 5674.66 5433.23 3128.34 3247.66 8KiB 8795.03 7468.45 9465.31 10015.06 5616.81 5674.44 16KiB 15913.38 12901.21 16437.40 16426.36 10316.27 10171.56 32KiB 27525.07 21270.07 25361.09 25557.25 17482.09 17803.41 64KiB 47500.61 32990.81 38590.02 37454.34 31113.93 27034.23 128KiB 63920.72 42161.17 58548.64 46011.54 7167.93 31891.99 256KiB 80030.02 51749.21 82274.47 54119.36 256.29 34057.95 512KiB 95386.27 45987.15 89375.52 49531.11 512.10 30722.53 1MiB 105059.69 50127.84 89988.79 50886.45 1020.18 31309.67 2MiB 99790.56 51408.41 95647.38 44390.74 2032.38 32697.59 4MiB 100633.5 51138.52 105273.11 54729.79 4424.93 34088.29 8MiB 99595.03 51523.92 98445.83 56116.61 7936.50 32557.95 16MiB 99126.65 51440.45 98111.82 55406.30 15400.82 32681.28 32MiB 99018.94 52719.74 96605.48 54410.23 28989.75 33275.04 Quick setup: single localhost client (no concurrency), no keepalives, 10 second max samples per file size per server config. I re-ran the NIO+sendfile tests afterward since the server was busy (recompiling gcc as well as serving HTTP requests to whomever happens to be using it right now) and I figured it was a fluke. The second test showed the same results: NIO looks great until it hits the 128KiB file, when it experiences a dramatic drop-off in performance. I'll have to look into that: the NIO connector /without/ sendfile enabled does not appear to suffer the same drop-off in performance (though it appears to be the weakest contender in the bunch). - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkoRt2gACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCqZgCeN6zXJFY0E5kquz5//CsnaFGN ZIwAn3b++7waMKoi9iJ2X0pyocKK7d/5 =UWiA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
