Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E5E4102.8090504@verizon.net>
References: <4E5E4102.8090504@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:18:23 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAG5OYaO2vLboatFyRFWM5NZHes2s1uB=+DfMcWOUm2yLFQXQAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance for many small requests
From: Francis GALIEGUE <fge@one2team.com>
To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 16:11, David kerber <dckerber@verizon.net> wrote:
> Has there been any comparison testing done in how the latest 7.x version =
of
> TC will compare to the latest 6.0.x version, in the case of tons (hundred=
s
> per second) of very small, quick-to-process requests?
>
> I have a machine that's starting to croak and am moving to a new machine,
> and need to decide whether to use the latest 6.x, or the latest 7.x versi=
on
> on Windows 2008. =C2=A0The app will of course be identical in either situ=
ation,
> and all it does is take data sent in the upload request, un-obfuscate it,
> and write it to disk after doing a checksum test. =C2=A0So it's minimal
> processing, but there are a LOT of them.
>
> Thanks for any insight!

Well, first things first, ensure keepalive works properly for the
connector(s) you use, but I guess you have it covered already, right?

Apart from that...

--=20
Francis Galiegue
ONE2TEAM
Ing=C3=A9nieur syst=C3=A8me
Mob : +33 (0) 683 877 875
Tel : +33 (0) 178 945 552
fge@one2team.com
40 avenue Raymond Poincar=C3=A9
75116 Paris

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