Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <6716615.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 05:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Niedermann <fbn@thelogic.org>
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance decreasing if access.log enabled
In-Reply-To: <452A3E99.6010008@joedog.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6713340.post@talk.nabble.com> <452A2AE9.2090609@joedog.org>
 <6715909.post@talk.nabble.com> <6715985.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <452A3E99.6010008@joedog.org>


Unfortunately I have to use Windows Server 2003 as the company behind the
application we're using is not supporting UNIX/Linux.

Windows also has performance utilities but they tell me that the server
isn't heavily loaded at all.

A good think would be to have a smaller access log just for statistics, like
only one line per user access and not every file which transferred to the
user (html, images, js and so on) ...

Frank


Tim Funk wrote:
> 
> Something seems odd with your system. I have pounded some tomcat 
> installations with old unix hardware with and without access logging and 
> could hardly tell the difference.
> 
> In linux - i was able to tell more of a difference, but not enough to 
> turn off logging.
> 
> I am at a loss of where the bottleneck is. If your using *nix - your 
> system should have some OS benchmarking to see disk utilization or other 
> potential bottlenecks.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> Frank Niedermann wrote:
>> I've installed LambdaProbe and it tells me that there are not much
>> Threads
>> (about 50) and most of them are in state of waiting or timed_waiting. So
>> that seems to be okay - but what if Tomcat sent the response to the first
>> user request and then does the logging, while the next request or other
>> users are waiting?
>>
>> And this:
>> The log files are under 20 MB, that should be fine, shoundn't it? The
>> disk
>> is way far from beeing full and it's a RAID1 with SCSI disks so they
>> should
>> have enough performance.
>>
>> I'm now totally unsure if I should enable access.log-files (to have
>> statistics with AWstats) or disable them (to have more performance) ...
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> Frank Niedermann wrote:
>>   
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Funk wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Unless you are max'd on working threads - access logging should not be
>>>> a 
>>>> performance hit. Access logging takes pace after the response is sent
>>>> to 
>>>> the client.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> BUT if the access logs are big, AND  you a re low on disk, AND/OR your 
>>> disk is SLOOOOW then that could be a problem. The overhead of logging 
>>> the access log is pretty low.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> The log files are under 20 MB, that should be fine, shoundn't it? The
>> disk
>> is way far from beeing full and it's a RAID1 with SCSI disks so they
>> should
>> have enough performance.
>>
>> I'm now totally unsure if I should enable access.log-files (to have
>> statistics with AWstats) or disable them (to have more performance) ...
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-decreasing-if-access.log-enabled-tf2408485.html#a6716615
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org