Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35530 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2007 06:11:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Oct 2007 06:11:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 18106 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2007 06:11:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 18071 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2007 06:11:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 18060 invoked by uid 99); 17 Oct 2007 06:11:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:11:10 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [82.70.116.177] (HELO mail.melandra.com) (82.70.116.177) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:11:13 +0000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Connector Compression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:10:49 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6619.12 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Connector Compression Thread-Index: AcgQS4mBGaNIlQVoTYSZ4+sPDJcaIwAN5VAA References: <002801c8104b$89e113c0$6c0010ac@dataoncall.dataoncall.com> From: "Peter Crowther" To: "Tomcat Users List" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > From: Mike Cronin [mailto:mike.cronin@fax.com]=20 > Is there any reason why you would not want to use compression on a > Connector? You're trading CPU cycles (running the compression algorithm) for bandwidth. I suspect you're also trading a certain amount of RAM (some extra buffers), though I haven't checked or measured how much so I may be talking out of my hat (as usual). Finally, you may be increasing the time to the first byte arriving back at the client, as you're increasing the amount of output the client has to generate before the first segment of the response is sent. If your servers are CPU-bound, you may not have the spare cycles; if you're tight on RAM, check whether the compression increases the memory use. If you have timing requirements, check that a system with compression enabled still meets them. All that said, a "typical" business application almost certainly has spare CPU, some spare RAM and no tight timing constraints on the first byte being returned - it's generally bandwidth out of the server and querying the database that are the limiting factors. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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