I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"... I guess that would 
depend on how many of those files you are serving a day... If I had 25 servers 
all working full-throttle all day, 4% would be enough to require 1 more server. 
If my peak load exceeds the necessary threshold, 4% could mean I get end-users 
seeing errors periodically through the day - even with much smaller 
configurations.

Just something to think about...

--
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 3:25 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin,

On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.

Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
give me 12 solid hours of testing. /Those/ should be more definitive
results. I've also rigged my test to prime the server by hitting each
file a single time, then waiting a few seconds, then starting the real test.

> 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).

Tomcat+APR is so close to httpd as to be in a dead heat as far as I'm
concerned. We'll know more once the larger-scale tests have been run. If
you graph these numbers (or read very carefully), you can see that
Coyote+APR outperforms httpd for two of the samples.

Also, the APR connector without sendfile is basically the same as using
the "simple" Coyote connector. I suspect the same is true of the NIO
connector, though it uses a different strategy for reading and writing,
obviously.

Something is obviously amiss with sendfile-enabled NIO connector,
though. Suggestions from those who know would be appreciated.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkoRxCEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBw1QCgs4g8fZk4ESSC7dDpVEZoAnah
HmQAoJk7FshdtZlboIG+niTRy0Lb5zRP
=6B0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Reply via email to