You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by David Morris <Da...@plumcreek.com> on 2003/09/18 19:51:53 UTC
Coyote Performance
I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a site using the
Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
interaction with three being relatively simple and two being complex
averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was much faster.
Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on how I can get
it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears that large pages
take a long time with the Coyote connector.
Thanks,
David Morris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Coyote Performance
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@jboss.org>.
Mike Curwen wrote:
> In exactly what manner was David "completely wrong"?
>
> In his identification of the bottleneck?
> In identifying the old connector as faster?
>
> Or is there a fundamental mistake in his whole post?
Well, the different is so huge, it is not consistent at all with any
measurement I've seen. So the most likely is an obvious mistake
somewhere. Simple logic :)
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rémy Maucherat
Senior Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re: Coyote Performance
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@jboss.org>.
Mike Curwen wrote:
> In exactly what manner was David "completely wrong"?
>
> In his identification of the bottleneck?
> In identifying the old connector as faster?
>
> Or is there a fundamental mistake in his whole post?
Well, the different is so huge, it is not consistent at all with any
measurement I've seen. So the most likely is an obvious mistake
somewhere. Simple logic :)
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rémy Maucherat
Senior Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Coyote Performance
Posted by Mike Curwen <gb...@gb-im.com>.
In exactly what manner was David "completely wrong"?
In his identification of the bottleneck?
In identifying the old connector as faster?
Or is there a fundamental mistake in his whole post?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@jboss.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Coyote Performance
>
>
> David Morris wrote:
>
> > I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a
> site using the
> > Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
> > java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
> > org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
> > causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
> > interaction with three being relatively simple and two
> being complex
> > averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
> >
> > I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
> > performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
> > org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was
> much faster.
> > Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on
> how I can
> > get it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears
> that large
> > pages take a long time with the Coyote connector.
>
> You are of course free to use whatever you want, but I
> believe you are
> completely wrong ;-)
>
> --
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rémy Maucherat
> Senior Developer & Consultant
> JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
RE: Coyote Performance
Posted by Mike Curwen <gb...@gb-im.com>.
In exactly what manner was David "completely wrong"?
In his identification of the bottleneck?
In identifying the old connector as faster?
Or is there a fundamental mistake in his whole post?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@jboss.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Coyote Performance
>
>
> David Morris wrote:
>
> > I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a
> site using the
> > Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
> > java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
> > org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
> > causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
> > interaction with three being relatively simple and two
> being complex
> > averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
> >
> > I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
> > performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
> > org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was
> much faster.
> > Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on
> how I can
> > get it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears
> that large
> > pages take a long time with the Coyote connector.
>
> You are of course free to use whatever you want, but I
> believe you are
> completely wrong ;-)
>
> --
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rémy Maucherat
> Senior Developer & Consultant
> JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Coyote Performance
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@jboss.org>.
David Morris wrote:
> I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a site using the
> Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
> java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
> org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
> causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
> interaction with three being relatively simple and two being complex
> averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
>
> I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
> performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
> org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was much faster.
> Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on how I can get
> it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears that large pages
> take a long time with the Coyote connector.
You are of course free to use whatever you want, but I believe you are
completely wrong ;-)
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rémy Maucherat
Senior Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re: Coyote Performance
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@jboss.org>.
David Morris wrote:
> I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a site using the
> Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
> java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
> org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
> causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
> interaction with three being relatively simple and two being complex
> averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
>
> I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
> performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
> org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was much faster.
> Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on how I can get
> it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears that large pages
> take a long time with the Coyote connector.
You are of course free to use whatever you want, but I believe you are
completely wrong ;-)
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rémy Maucherat
Senior Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Coyote Performance
Posted by Peter Lin <tc...@yahoo.com>.
I'm not totally clear on how you profiled the page. Did you use OptimizeIt/JProbe, or simply added a start time at the beginning and at the end.
from first hand experience, I doubt the connector is the cause, but I could be wrong. What in your struts page is causing it to take 35 seconds? You might want to time the actual application process and see how much time it takes.
In theory and practice reading the input into buffers scales better. What exactly does the page do with the input in the first place?
peter
David Morris <Da...@plumcreek.com> wrote:
I did some profiling of a slow page (Struts based) on a site using the
Coyote connector. This site does not use Apache. It appeared that a
java.net.SocketInputStream.read being invoked from
org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.parseRequestLine() was
causing a bottleneck. In this case average response over a 5 page
interaction with three being relatively simple and two being complex
averaged 35 seconds per response when repeated 20 times.
I changed the site to use the old and deprecated http connector and
performance improved to 4 seconds per response. It appears that the
org.apache.catalina.connector.http.SocketInputStream was much faster.
Since Coyote is recommended, does anyone have any ideas on how I can get
it to perform better? Over dozens of tests, it appears that large pages
take a long time with the Coyote connector.
Thanks,
David Morris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
help in chanel jni
Posted by ABDUL BASIT <ab...@yahoo.com>.
hi,
can any one help me in connecting tomcat5.0.9 with
apache2.0.47 with jk2-2.0.43.
I have connected Tomcat5.0.9 and Apache2.0.47 with
jk2-2.0.43 on channel socket.
I want to connect them with channel jni.
please any one tell me the step by step procedure.
Thanking you.
My e-mail address is abdul_basit1299@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
help in chanel jni
Posted by ABDUL BASIT <ab...@yahoo.com>.
hi,
can any one help me in connecting tomcat5.0.9 with
apache2.0.47 with jk2-2.0.43.
I have connected Tomcat5.0.9 and Apache2.0.47 with
jk2-2.0.43 on channel socket.
I want to connect them with channel jni.
please any one tell me the step by step procedure.
Thanking you.
My e-mail address is abdul_basit1299@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com