tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric B." <>
Subject NIO vs APR vs JIO connectors?
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:39:58 GMT

I've been trying to read all the threads relating to which connector is 
"best" to use  HTTP (no SSL).  I am planning to use Pound as an HTTP load 
balancer in front of Tomcat as I have no need for all the bells and whistles 
that Apache provides and Pound is fast and light.

>From what I've been reading through all the threads here is that the JIO 
connector is the oldest and the most stable.  The APR connector is basically 
the same connector that is used in Apache httpd, so using the APR connector 
would, in theory, give me the same performance as though I was using httpd. 
Finally, the NIO is the latest addition to the Tomcat family that gives you 
the benefits of a fully java non-blocking connector, and should perform 
similarly to the APR connector for HTTP but be more sluggish on HTTPS. 
Addtionally, given that NIO is the most recent, it doesn't have as much 
"experience" as APR or JIO.

That being said, I was leaning towards using the NIO connector for my 
installation.  However, I was pretty surprised and shocked when reading 
"Tomcat - The Definitive Guide 2nd Edition" by Jason Brittain (O'Reilly 
Press), that the JIO was the fastest and most responsive when service small 
text files and 9k images. 

pp.138-148).   In fact, their published benchmarks should that the JIO was 
fastest, followed by APR, followed by NIO.  Could that be attributed to 
configuration parameters for the individual connectors?

That seems pretty contrary to everything I've read on this list to date. 
Can anyone shed some light on this descrepancy?



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message