From dev-return-77226-apmail-tomcat-dev-archive=tomcat.apache.org@tomcat.apache.org Wed Dec 13 14:35:16 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 82189 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2006 14:35:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2006 14:35:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 93732 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 14:35:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 93717 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 14:35:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 93706 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2006 14:35:03 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:35:03 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [12.11.148.122] (HELO relay2.ptc.com) (12.11.148.122) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:34:52 -0800 Received: from hq-ex3fe3.ptcnet.ptc.com ([132.253.201.67]) by relay2.ptc.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2006 09:34:31 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.12,163,1165208400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="180412343:sNHT26975404" Received: from [132.253.40.123] ([132.253.40.123]) by hq-ex3fe3.ptcnet.ptc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:34:31 -0500 Message-ID: <45800F62.7040405@ptc.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:34:10 -0600 From: Jess Holle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Serious mod_jk performance issue References: <457ED915.7020506@ptc.com> <457FA9D4.7010607@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <457FA9D4.7010607@apache.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060007020709000604000600" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2006 14:34:31.0157 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD15EA50:01C71EC3] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------060007020709000604000600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apache and tomcat are both on the same Solaris 10 box and the network between client (XP) is 100Mbit. -- Jess Holle Rainer Jung wrote: > If noone finds a reason for it, I can go into it during the weekend. I > would try to reproduce and research on Solaris. Concerning your data for > Solaris: Apache and Tomcat were both on Solaris? The same machine or > different? Network between Client (Browser?) and Apache was 100MBit or > 1GBit? > > Regards, > > Rainer > > Jess Holle schrieb: > >> We're seeing a *serious *performance issue with mod_jk and large (e.g. >> 500MB+) file transfers. [This is with Apache 2.0.55, Tomcat 5.0.30, and >> various recent mod_jk including 1.2.20.] >> >> The performance of downloading the file via Apache is good, as is the >> performance when downloading directly from Tomcat. The performance when >> downloading from Tomcat through Apache via mod_jk is, however, quite >> abysmal. I'd obviously expect *some* degradation due to the extra >> interprocess hop, but given that this is a just a single-user, >> single-request test, I'd expect that the network would still be the >> limiting factor -- or at least that the degradation would be in the >> order of 25% of less. What we're seeing, however, is far worse: >> >> On Windows: >> >> * Apache 2.0.55, Tomcat 5.0.30, and mod_jk 1.2.20 - Started at >> 10 MB/sec ended at 3 MB/sec with mod_deflate disabled (1.5 >> MB/sec with mod_deflate enabled) >> * Apache 2.0.55, Tomcat 5.0.30, and mod_jk 1.2.19 - Disabling >> JkFlushPackets only slightly improved performance. >> * Apache 2.2.3 with Tomcat 5.5.20 w/ the native connector - >> Didn't work period. I didn't have a chance to look into it, >> but the download failed after getting serveral packets (!) >> * Apache 2.2.3 with Tomcat 5.5.20 w/o the native connector - Was >> only slightly slower than going straight through Apache >> about 7-8 MB/sec >> >> On Solaris: >> >> * Apache 2.0.55, Tomcat 5.0.30, recent mod_jk - Fairly constant >> 4MB/s when going through mod_jk, 10MB/s when just downloading >> via Apache >> >> [This issue originally was thought to be Windows specific, which is >> why we have many more results for Windows.] >> >> Obviously if our end goal was simple static file transfers we'd just >> share/mirror them to Apache to solve this (we need the load balancing >> flexibility, etc, of mod_jk, so directly using Tomcat is not really an >> option -- nor is doing non-AJP-proxying). The static file case is the >> simplified reproduction of our real issue, however, which is large file >> downloads from our (Java-based) content store. >> >> We had much better results with Apache 2.2.3 and Tomcat 5.5.20 with >> tcnative, but we really don't want to force a move to 2.2.x and Tomcat >> 5.5.x in this case and we've had issues with tcnative (which we *hope* >> may be resolved with 1.1.8). Overall we'd much prefer to get mod_jk >> working reasonably than to force a disruptive move to 2.2.x right now. >> >> Is this a known issue? Any pointers as to where/how to look for the >> performance bottleneck? Some VTune examination showed that almost all >> of Apache's CPU time during this time was in libapr.dll, but that's >> obviously not terribly specific. >> >> -- >> Jess Holle >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org > > --------------060007020709000604000600--