tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Warnier ...@ice-sa.com>
Subject Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
Date Mon, 18 May 2009 20:56:49 GMT
Chris, what do the numbers represent ?

You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not 
the seconds it took, so what are they ?

I also wonder about the numbers, for example in the first column 
(httpd).  They seem to grow more or less lineraly as the file size 
increases, but they at 512 KB they just level off.
It seems a bit counter-intutive that it would take "the same whatever" 
to serve 512KB files and 32MB ones.

André


Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> All,
> 
> After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
> 
> - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
> - - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
> - - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
> - - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
>   certain number of requests
> 
> I have some preliminary results. Just as a smoke-test, I ran my tests
> for 10 seconds each (10 seconds per file size, per server config) which
> means that I can get a complete set of results in 15 minutes. The
> results are borderline useless, but you can already start to see the
> different configurations differentiate themselves:
> 
> File Size	Apache httpd	Coyote	Coyote APR	Coyote APR -sendfile	Coyote
> NIO	Coyote NIO –sendfile
> 4KiB	4984.02	3833.73	5674.66	5433.23	3128.34	3247.66
> 8KiB	8795.03	7468.45	9465.31	10015.06	5616.81	5674.44
> 16KiB	15913.38	12901.21	16437.40	16426.36	10316.27	10171.56
> 32KiB	27525.07	21270.07	25361.09	25557.25	17482.09	17803.41
> 64KiB	47500.61	32990.81	38590.02	37454.34	31113.93	27034.23
> 128KiB	63920.72	42161.17	58548.64	46011.54	7167.93	31891.99
> 256KiB	80030.02	51749.21	82274.47	54119.36	256.29	34057.95
> 512KiB	95386.27	45987.15	89375.52	49531.11	512.10	30722.53
> 1MiB	105059.69	50127.84	89988.79	50886.45	1020.18	31309.67
> 2MiB	99790.56	51408.41	95647.38	44390.74	2032.38	32697.59
> 4MiB	100633.5	51138.52	105273.11	54729.79	4424.93	34088.29
> 8MiB	99595.03	51523.92	98445.83	56116.61	7936.50	32557.95
> 16MiB	99126.65	51440.45	98111.82	55406.30	15400.82	32681.28
> 32MiB	99018.94	52719.74	96605.48	54410.23	28989.75	33275.04
> 
> Quick setup: single localhost client (no concurrency), no keepalives, 10
> second max samples per file size per server config.
> 
> I re-ran the NIO+sendfile tests afterward since the server was busy
> (recompiling gcc as well as serving HTTP requests to whomever happens to
> be using it right now) and I figured it was a fluke. The second test
> showed the same results: NIO looks great until it hits the 128KiB file,
> when it experiences a dramatic drop-off in performance. I'll have to
> look into that: the NIO connector /without/ sendfile enabled does not
> appear to suffer the same drop-off in performance (though it appears to
> be the weakest contender in the bunch).
> 
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoRt2gACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCqZgCeN6zXJFY0E5kquz5//CsnaFGN
> ZIwAn3b++7waMKoi9iJ2X0pyocKK7d/5
> =UWiA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message