From tomcat-dev-return-51076-apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org Tue Oct 05 11:43:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18307 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2004 11:43:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2004 11:43:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 63592 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2004 11:43:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 63491 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2004 11:43:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 63476 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2004 11:43:01 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [204.74.20.252] (HELO sid.armstrong.com) (204.74.20.252) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 04:42:58 -0700 Received: from [10.38.20.246] ([10.38.20.246]) by sid.armstrong.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i95BiZTj022190 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:44:35 -0500 Message-ID: <416288C0.1030009@joedog.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:42:56 -0400 From: Tim Funk Organization: Human being User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, de, sv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [5.5] Todo list References: <41618AF0.8050201@apache.org> <4162860E.6080409@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4162860E.6080409@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Just an fyi, At one time, I was thinking that AccessLogValve was bad for performance. But I think it has no effect unless you are maxed out in processors. The AccessLog writing only occurs *after* the response has been sent to the client and the request is essentially done. I think if there is a performance issue - it is OS/filesystem specific. We pounded some HPUX boxes with and without access logs turned on. As long as we did not run out of processors, we didn't see any performance differences. It might be of interest to parse and decode the pattern at set time for AccessLogValve (like the ExtendedVersion does) to prevent a lot of extra string comparisons. (If the user chooses a custom pattern) But I'm indifferent because of the results I posted above. On a stressed system, this might still be a good thing todo. -Tim Remy Maucherat wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > Adding new items: > - Use this to try to provide an optimized version of the access logging > valve (access logging is likely used in production for standalone > Tomcat, and it has very bad performance right now) which would do > asynchronous writes to its file (and hopefully be more efficient) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org