Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]

[Peter Lin <wo...@gmail.com>]

If you need to serve static files for a high volume website, you're
better off paying a specialty provider for it. Back when I worked at
verizon, we used Akamai for static files like images etc.

serving up a ton of large static files quickly swamps your bandwidth,
so the question isn't whether that 4% matters. It's really about how
much bandwidth you're chewing up with static data. Unless the servers
are hosted at a Tier 1 provider with OC12 bandwidth or higher, it
really isn't going to make any difference from my experience.

peter

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robin Wilson <rw...@kingsisle.com> wrote:
> I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"... I guess that would depend on how many of those files you are serving a day... If I had 25 servers all working full-throttle all day, 4% would be enough to require 1 more server. If my peak load exceeds the necessary threshold, 4% could mean I get end-users seeing errors periodically through the day - even with much smaller configurations.
>
> Just something to think about...
>
> --
> Robin D. Wilson
> Director of Web Development
> KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
> WORK: 512-623-5913
> CELL: 512-426-3929
> www.KingsIsle.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robin,
>
> On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
>> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
>> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
>
> Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
> give me 12 solid hours of testing. /Those/ should be more definitive
> results. I've also rigged my test to prime the server by hitting each
> file a single time, then waiting a few seconds, then starting the real test.
>
>> This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for
>> files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or
>> more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger
>> files).
>
> Tomcat+APR is so close to httpd as to be in a dead heat as far as I'm
> concerned. We'll know more once the larger-scale tests have been run. If
> you graph these numbers (or read very carefully), you can see that
> Coyote+APR outperforms httpd for two of the samples.
>
> Also, the APR connector without sendfile is basically the same as using
> the "simple" Coyote connector. I suspect the same is true of the NIO
> connector, though it uses a different strategy for reading and writing,
> obviously.
>
> Something is obviously amiss with sendfile-enabled NIO connector,
> though. Suggestions from those who know would be appreciated.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoRxCEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBw1QCgs4g8fZk4ESSC7dDpVEZoAnah
> HmQAoJk7FshdtZlboIG+niTRy0Lb5zRP
> =6B0w
> -----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