Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85657 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2004 12:51:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Dec 2004 12:51:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 40973 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2004 12:50:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 40786 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2004 12:50:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Users List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 40576 invoked by uid 99); 7 Dec 2004 12:50:15 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from mailrelay1.nefonline.de (HELO mailrelay1.nefonline.de) (212.114.153.196) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:50:13 -0800 Received: from linux3 (mail.docware.de [192.189.14.2]) by mailrelay1.nefonline.de (NEFkom Mailservice) with ESMTP id iB7Co7R20345 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:50:07 +0100 Received: from pc40.fuerth.docware.de ([10.10.10.114] helo=PC40) by linux3 with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CbeoM-0000Qb-00 for ; Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:51:22 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_S=FCdkamp?= To: Subject: Performance with/without loadbalancing Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:50:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c4dc5b$47a2e910$720a0a0a@Fuerth.docware.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi, I set up loadbalancing with Tomcat 4.1.30 and the JK connector and tested it with JMeter. For a certain test configuration I found the following average request durations: Tomcat workers request duration ------------------------------------------- 1 (no load balancing) 35 seconds 2 4 seconds 3 2,2 seconds All workers ran on just one PC. What I wonder is why a loadbalanced configuration is that much more performant than a Tomcat configuration without loadbalancing. Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org