tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Armstrong <>
Subject Re: Anyone know why the ISAPI redirector works how it does?
Date Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:41:37 GMT

"Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote:
> Hola Andy:
> >
> > Thanks Ignacio; I understand what you're saying now. If all
> > the filters
> > run in the same thread that implies that IIS handles all its
> > requests in
> > a single thread, which seems unlikely, but of course I could be wrong.
> >
> What i'm trying to say is not that, is evident that IIS does not serve
> all the request from the same thread .. only that every filter is called
> in ALL the IIS request.. ergo if you start to block server threads in
> tomcat requests you are pushing innecesarily the IIS server... at least
> the thread pool that is used to serve requests..

I would have thought that IIS's threading model was designed to handle
that. There must be other cases where an in-process request can stall
for a significant period of time; can it really be the case that this
causes problems for the server as a whole? In any case I suspect I am
about to find out ;-)

> > I'd be interested in anything you can find. I don't expect it
> > to involve
> > too much work, so I'm going to build it and do some
> > performance testing
> > to find out if there are any problems. From what you're saying the
> > performance problem to look for would be lots of Tomcat
> > requests having
> > an adverse affect on the performance for non-Tomcat IIS requests.
> >
> This is the bad behaviour the filter+Extension mix is trying to avoid..

I understand that. What I'm saying is that if I can detect any
performance degradation for non-Tomcat requests I will have failed.

> > I'm putting it in a directory called 'isapi' and leaving 'iis' intact.
> > In any case I have some more work to do on the existing IIS redirector
> > to make it work properly with the latest jk code, but that's
> > a separate
> > issue, and I won't do anything too scary to the current IIS code.
> >
> Thanks, this is was my -1 was intended for..

So, +1 for trying a different approach without breaking what's already

Andy Armstrong, Tagish

View raw message