You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com> on 2012/01/27 15:53:00 UTC
Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Hello, Developers!
1. What are the premises to use either apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
connectors?
2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to
get the advantages?
3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pid,
On 1/27/12 4:16 PM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>
>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>
>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>
>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>
> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
... with fewer resources.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk8oVmAACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCyYACcDi0s0ZBHyt98VzVhZNfUM474
vqkAnAzuJgJ5VeZ0DuTQSP/FgBK5jibL
=wRU5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 6:33 AM, Terence M. Bandoian wrote:
>
>>> How much is a lot?
>>
>> 10'000/sec
>>
>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>
>> 1
>>
>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>
>> 8GB/Xeon
>>
>>> How big is the average response?
>>
>> 300Kb
>>
>
> How many NICs do you have? Have fast are they?
one. as i said above, the actual traffic is less than 1Gb/sec.
don't pay attention to technical details of my hardware.
the question is theoretical.
i want to understand what each combination of connector+servlet api is intended for.
my service works pretty well, i'm just looking forward, but most repliers don't know
the subject well, so they can't explain.
>
> -Terence Bandoian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by "Terence M. Bandoian" <te...@tmbsw.com>.
>> How much is a lot?
>
> 10'000/sec
>
>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>
> 1
>
>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>
> 8GB/Xeon
>
>> How big is the average response?
>
> 300Kb
>
How many NICs do you have? Have fast are they?
-Terence Bandoian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
To whom it may concern,
On 1/27/12 6:35 PM, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>> 10'000 req/sec 300Kb/response
That should be just under 3GiB (gigabyte) per second response, not 3Gb
(gigabit).
>>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
Is that in gigabits or gigabytes per second?
>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
Agreed.
> well, we are getting too far from the subject. can you make up 3
> cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api 1. bio
> connector + async servlet 2. nio connector + sync servlet 3. nio
> connector + async servlet
Use of the async APIs only makes sense if your application's
architecture lends itself to asynchronous communication. If you are
serving static(ish) content, for instance, async doesn't make any sense.
You can of course mix and match async and any of the connectors.
If you want decent performance and resource management, you should use
something other than the BIO connector.
> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of
> connector+servlet api is the best choice?
I would use either NIO or APR and the choice of async can only be
answered by your own architecture.
>> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you
>> found CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
>
> why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
Lots of reasons. Performance, for one.
> actually we don't have any problems to solve.
Sounds like a good position to be in.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk8oWKAACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDpRQCfTyAwcO3i6j9vgoTEgBslJVTz
2dMAoJkbCcE71g9V5T3M65+AXZfaVumB
=N8YV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 3:41 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 23:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 3:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10'000/sec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>>>>
>>>>> Only 1 CPU?
>>>>
>>>> yes, but it's multicore.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 300Kb
>>>>>
>>>>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>>>>> second?
>>>>
>>>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>>>
>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>
>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api
>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>> api is the best choice?
>
> Nope.
it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess, unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>>>>
>>>> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you
>>>> surprised?
>>>
>>> No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean< 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
>>> OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
>>> usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
>>
>> is it some kind of sarcasm?
>
> Yep.
ok, very funny.
>
>>>>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>>>>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>>>>
>>>> we use a custom garbage collector.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Of your own design?
>>
>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>
> I shall.
what garbage collector do you use?
>
>
> p
>
>>> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
>>> CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
>>
>> why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
>> actually we don't have any problems to solve.
>> my question is more theoretical.
>>
>>> * There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 6:14 PM, Pid * wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2012, at 13:34, bxqdev<bx...@themailbay.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/2012 5:01 PM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 28/01/2012 09:07, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>>>>>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of
>>>>>>>> connector+servlet api
>>>>>>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>>>>>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>>>>>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>>>>>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>>>>>>> api is the best choice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess,
>>>>>> unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
>>>>> already gave a reasonable answer.
>>>>
>>>> well, nothing personal. but if you can't explain - you don't know by
>>>> yourself. that's the rule :)
>>>
>>> Still baiting, still not biting.
>>>
>>> I might refer to your own replies, in which you made certain claims
>>> without explaining how.
>>
>> you're trying to change the subject, the point is: you don't know enough to
>> answer the original question.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I shall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what garbage collector do you use?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends.
>>>>
>>>> ok. can you enumerate them though? are you able to give detailed and
>>>> comprehensive
>>>> answers, besides yeps, nopes and depends?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> unfortunately you've just proved the opposite :)
>
> Your reasoning is flawed and my contributions to this list over the
> years stand as evidence to the contrary.
contribution of unrelated counter-questions to unanswered questions :)
thanks anyway, at least you've tried :)
>
> Do let us know when you open source your garbage collector.
>
sure!
>
> p
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 28 Jan 2012, at 13:34, bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/2012 5:01 PM, Pid wrote:
>> On 28/01/2012 09:07, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>>>>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of
>>>>>>> connector+servlet api
>>>>>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>>>>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>>>>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>>>>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>>>>>> api is the best choice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess,
>>>>> unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
>>>> already gave a reasonable answer.
>>>
>>> well, nothing personal. but if you can't explain - you don't know by
>>> yourself. that's the rule :)
>>
>> Still baiting, still not biting.
>>
>> I might refer to your own replies, in which you made certain claims
>> without explaining how.
>
> you're trying to change the subject, the point is: you don't know enough to
> answer the original question.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shall.
>>>>>
>>>>> what garbage collector do you use?
>>>>
>>>> Depends.
>>>
>>> ok. can you enumerate them though? are you able to give detailed and
>>> comprehensive
>>> answers, besides yeps, nopes and depends?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> unfortunately you've just proved the opposite :)
Your reasoning is flawed and my contributions to this list over the
years stand as evidence to the contrary.
Do let us know when you open source your garbage collector.
p
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 5:01 PM, Pid wrote:
> On 28/01/2012 09:07, bxqdev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>>>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of
>>>>>> connector+servlet api
>>>>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>>>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>>>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>>>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>>>>> api is the best choice?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess,
>>>> unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>>>
>>> Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
>>> already gave a reasonable answer.
>>
>> well, nothing personal. but if you can't explain - you don't know by
>> yourself. that's the rule :)
>
> Still baiting, still not biting.
>
> I might refer to your own replies, in which you made certain claims
> without explaining how.
you're trying to change the subject, the point is: you don't know enough to
answer the original question.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I shall.
>>>>
>>>> what garbage collector do you use?
>>>
>>> Depends.
>>
>> ok. can you enumerate them though? are you able to give detailed and
>> comprehensive
>> answers, besides yeps, nopes and depends?
>
> Yep.
unfortunately you've just proved the opposite :)
>
>
> p
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 28/01/2012 09:07, bxqdev wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>>
>>>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of
>>>>> connector+servlet api
>>>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>>>> api is the best choice?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess,
>>> unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>>
>> Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
>> already gave a reasonable answer.
>
> well, nothing personal. but if you can't explain - you don't know by
> yourself. that's the rule :)
Still baiting, still not biting.
I might refer to your own replies, in which you made certain claims
without explaining how.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
<snip>
>>>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>>>
>>>> I shall.
>>>
>>> what garbage collector do you use?
>>
>> Depends.
>
> ok. can you enumerate them though? are you able to give detailed and
> comprehensive
> answers, besides yeps, nopes and depends?
Yep.
p
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 12:09 PM, Pid * wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2012, at 23:53, bxqdev<bx...@themailbay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 3:41 AM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 23:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2012 3:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 10'000/sec
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only 1 CPU?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, but it's multicore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 300Kb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>>>>>>> second?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>
>>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api
>>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>>> api is the best choice?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess, unfortunately, it's not the case :)
>
> Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
> already gave a reasonable answer.
well, nothing personal. but if you can't explain - you don't know by yourself. that's the rule :)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>>>>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you
>>>>>> surprised?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean< 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
>>>>> OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
>>>>> usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
>>>>
>>>> is it some kind of sarcasm?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> ok, very funny.
>>
>>>>>>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>>>>>>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we use a custom garbage collector.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. Of your own design?
>>>>
>>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>>
>>> I shall.
>>
>> what garbage collector do you use?
>
> Depends.
ok. can you enumerate them though? are you able to give detailed and comprehensive
answers, besides yeps, nopes and depends?
>
>
> p
>
>>>>> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
>>>>> CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
>>>>
>>>> why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
>>>> actually we don't have any problems to solve.
>>>> my question is more theoretical.
>>>>
>>>>> * There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27 Jan 2012, at 23:53, bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2012 3:41 AM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 23:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 3:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10'000/sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only 1 CPU?
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, but it's multicore.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 300Kb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>>>>>> second?
>>>>>
>>>>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>>>>
>>>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>
>>> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
>>> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api
>>> 1. bio connector + async servlet
>>> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
>>> 3. nio connector + async servlet
>>> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
>>> api is the best choice?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> it's not that hard, when you know the subject, but i guess, unfortunately, it's not the case :)
Oh, that's even more crude than my baiting. Aside from which Mark
already gave a reasonable answer.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>>>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>>>>>
>>>>> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you
>>>>> surprised?
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean< 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
>>>> OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
>>>> usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
>>>
>>> is it some kind of sarcasm?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> ok, very funny.
>
>>>>>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>>>>>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>>>>>
>>>>> we use a custom garbage collector.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. Of your own design?
>>>
>>> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>>
>> I shall.
>
> what garbage collector do you use?
Depends.
p
>>>> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
>>>> CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
>>>
>>> why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
>>> actually we don't have any problems to solve.
>>> my question is more theoretical.
>>>
>>>> * There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27/01/2012 23:35, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 3:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>>>
>>>>> 10'000/sec
>>>>>
>>>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>>>
>>>> Only 1 CPU?
>>>
>>> yes, but it's multicore.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>>>
>>>>> 300Kb
>>>>
>>>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>>>> second?
>>>
>>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>>
>> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>
> well, we are getting too far from the subject.
> can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api
> 1. bio connector + async servlet
> 2. nio connector + sync servlet
> 3. nio connector + async servlet
> i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet
> api is the best choice?
Nope.
>>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your
>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>>>
>>>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>>>
>>>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>>>
>>> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you
>>> surprised?
>>
>> No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean< 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
>> OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
>> usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
>> well.
>>
>> Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
>
> is it some kind of sarcasm?
Yep.
>>>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>>>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>>>
>>> we use a custom garbage collector.
>>
>> Interesting. Of your own design?
>
> yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
I shall.
p
>> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
>> CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
>
> why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
> actually we don't have any problems to solve.
> my question is more theoretical.
>
>> * There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 3:16 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>>
>>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>>
>>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>>
>>>> 10'000/sec
>>>>
>>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>>
>>>> 1
>>>>
>>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>>
>>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>>
>>> Only 1 CPU?
>>
>> yes, but it's multicore.
>>
>>>
>>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>>
>>>> 300Kb
>>>
>>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>>> second?
>>
>> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>
> I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
well, we are getting too far from the subject.
can you make up 3 cases when to use 3 combinations of connector+servlet api
1. bio connector + async servlet
2. nio connector + sync servlet
3. nio connector + async servlet
i mean in which theoretical case each combination of connector+servlet api is the best choice?
>
>
>>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application
>>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>>
>>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>>
>>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>>
>>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>>
>> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you surprised?
>
> No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean< 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
> OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
> usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
> well.
>
> Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
is it some kind of sarcasm?
>
>
>>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>>
>> we use a custom garbage collector.
>
> Interesting. Of your own design?
yes, we're going to opensource it soon. stay tuned.
>
> I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
> CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
why would we use 32bit OS/JVM on 8Gb server?
actually we don't have any problems to solve.
my question is more theoretical.
>
>
> p
>
>
>
> * There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27/01/2012 22:51, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>>
>>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>>
>>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>> to handle?
>>>>>
>>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance,
>>>>> for
>>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> How much is a lot?
>>>
>>> 10'000/sec
>>>
>>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>>
>>> 1
>>>
>>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>>
>>> 8GB/Xeon
>>
>> Only 1 CPU?
>
> yes, but it's multicore.
>
>>
>>>> How big is the average response?
>>>
>>> 300Kb
>>
>> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
>> second?
>
> actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
I see. Did you identify where the bottleneck was?
>>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application
>>>>>> yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide details.
>>>>
>>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>>
>>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>>
>> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
>
> i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you surprised?
No, I'm curious*. Of course you mean < 8Gb for the JVM process, as the
OS etc consumes ~1.5Gb usually, you want to leave a bit of space too, so
usually end up aiming for 4Gb for the JVM unless you want to use swap as
well.
Are you using swap to improve your memory performance?
>> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
>> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
>
> we use a custom garbage collector.
Interesting. Of your own design?
I was going to ask whether you had a 64bit JVM and whether you found
CompressedOops to be a performance improvement or not?
p
* There's a few meanings to that, André, I know which one I meant.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 2:39 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>>
>>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>>
>>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>
>> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>>> to get
>>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>>
>>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>>> expecting
>>>>> to handle?
>>>>
>>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance, for
>>>> example.
>>>
>>> How much is a lot?
>>
>> 10'000/sec
>>
>>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>>
>> 1
>>
>>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>>
>> 8GB/Xeon
>
> Only 1 CPU?
yes, but it's multicore.
>
>>> How big is the average response?
>>
>> 300Kb
>
> So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
> second?
actually when i measured it was less than 1Gb/sec
>
>
>>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application
>>>>> yet?
>>>>
>>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>>
>>> Please provide details.
>>>
>>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>>> optimise Tomcat first?
>>
>> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>
> How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
i wrote nice code. it's serving 1Gb/sec with 8Gb of RAM. are you surprised?
>
> In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
> you optimised the garbage collector for this?
we use a custom garbage collector.
>
>
> p
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27/01/2012 21:35, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>
>>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>>
>>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>>
>> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>
> yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>
>>
>>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api
>>>>> to get
>>>>> the advantages?
>>>>
>>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you
>>>> expecting
>>>> to handle?
>>>
>>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance, for
>>> example.
>>
>> How much is a lot?
>
> 10'000/sec
>
>> How many Tomcats are you running?
>
> 1
>
>> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
>
> 8GB/Xeon
Only 1 CPU?
>> How big is the average response?
>
> 300Kb
So you want to send 300k * 10000 / sec? Isn't that just under 3Gb per
second?
>>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>>
>>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application
>>>> yet?
>>>
>>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>>
>> Please provide details.
>>
>> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
>> optimise Tomcat first?
>
> webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
How did you optimise your webapp for 3Gb/sec with only 8Gb of RAM?
In 3 seconds you'll have produced more data than you have RAM, how have
you optimised the garbage collector for this?
p
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 1:16 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>
>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>
>>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>>
>> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>
> NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
yeah, that's why i use the nio connector.
>
>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
>>>> the advantages?
>>>
>>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you expecting
>>> to handle?
>>
>> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance, for
>> example.
>
> How much is a lot?
10'000/sec
> How many Tomcats are you running?
1
> How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
8GB/Xeon
> How big is the average response?
300Kb
>
>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>>
>>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application yet?
>>
>> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>
> Please provide details.
>
> How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
> optimise Tomcat first?
webapp is optimized, i want to optimize tomcat.
>
>
> p
>
>>> p
>>>
>>>> thanks.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27/01/2012 21:06, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>
>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>
>> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
>
> i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
NIO can handle more concurrent connections.
>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
>>> the advantages?
>>
>> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you expecting
>> to handle?
>
> a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance, for
> example.
How much is a lot?
How many Tomcats are you running?
How much RAM/CPU per server etc?
How big is the average response?
>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>
>> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application yet?
>
> yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
Please provide details.
How have you optimised your application so far, or are you hoping to
optimise Tomcat first?
p
>> p
>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/27/2012 8:27 PM, Pid wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>> Hello, Developers!
>>
>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>
> Eh? Is that what you really mean?
i mean what are the reasons to use either connector variant.
>
>
>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
>> the advantages?
>
> What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you expecting
> to handle?
a lot of. i'm looking for advantages in throughput and performance, for example.
>
>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>
> First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application yet?
yes, i need a better throughput and performance.
>
>
> p
>
>> thanks.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
> Hello, Developers!
>
> 1. What are the premises to use either
> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
Eh? Is that what you really mean?
> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
> the advantages?
What advantages are you looking for? How much traffic are you expecting
to handle?
> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
First, don't prematurely optimise. Have you tested your application yet?
p
> thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Considering your previous posts, I wasn't really expecting you to take this lying down.
You haven't disappointed me. The world is full of wonders.
"Un paquet de m. dans un bas de soie".
:-)
bxqdev wrote:
> andre, i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings and trust in humanity,
> try to be positive, try to look on the situation from
> another point of view, the one which is not depressive.
> i hope my question & answer summary upgraded your level of tomcat
> understanding.
> and that's a good thing, because you wouldn't understand connectors &
> async servlets
> so well, if i didn't post the question in the first place and make the
> answer summary
> in the second. i've already thanked both talkers, which makes me a very
> nice person :)
> and even though slow pid still doesn't understand anything and arrogant
> mark still
> searches for insignificant typos in my posts, i don't blame them for who
> they are :)
> i hope everyone enjoyed the thread. thanks everyone. behave well :)
>
> On 1/28/2012 8:36 PM, André Warnier wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Your original question was
>>
>> quote
>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>> connectors?
>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to
>> get the advantages?
>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>> unquote
>>
>> and your conclusion is :
>>
>>> well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff and arrogance:
>>>
>>> 1. nio connector is useful when one needs to handle a lot of
>>> client connections, keep-alive ones, for example.
>>> 2. async servlet is useful when one app thread can fulfill many
>>> responses.
>>> 3. communication between connector and async servlet should be called
>>> semi-async, rather than async, because request processing is
>>> sync anyway, although response processing is async.
>>>
>>> that could be a simple answer for my question in the first place.
>>> everything else is triteness.
>>> thanks anyway :)
>>> thread can be closed now.
>>>
>>
>> If it were to happen that you would have a further need to make use of
>> this list (or another similar help forum), may I suggest
>> that you fist read and ponder the document at
>> http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.
>> And if you have read it already, read it again, because you would seem
>> to have missed its quintessence.
>>
>> I have just been watching this thread, as the underlying technique is
>> far above my level.
>> But to answer your claims of arrogance and triteness :
>>
>> It already took several exchanges to get you to correct the mistakes
>> (or should I say the chaff?) in your question, which made
>> it close to nonsensical in the first place.
>> When the persons here who try to help posters in their enquiries asked
>> you for clarification, your responses seemed to imply
>> that they should have been smart enough to correct your own messiness,
>> and that you could barely bother yourself to do so.
>> Even after correction, your original questions were so open-ended that
>> answering them in the manner you seemed to want, would
>> have amounted to providing a free training manual in Connector code
>> and the relevant aspects of the Servlet Specification.
>> But throughout, you sounded as if such an answer was just your due,
>> although you are neither paying for the software nor for the
>> help. You did not appear to make any effort in providing information
>> allowing the persons who were trying to help, to at least
>> be able to focus their explanations and save their time (and yours).
>> By doing this, you managed to goad someone into spending the time to
>> correct your misunderstandings and misconceptions, and out
>> of their comprehensive answers you then magnanimously extracted what
>> was important for you, discarding the rest as chaff and
>> triteness.
>> So in the end you got what you probably wanted, and which you could
>> have gotten much faster, and at less expense of someone
>> else's time, if you had made an effort to write correct and focused
>> questions in the first place.
>> In this process, you also managed to expose yourself as an arrogant
>> and egotistical asshole. I hope that the trade-off is worth
>> it to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
[OT] Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 28/01/2012 19:07, bxqdev wrote:
> andre, i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings and trust in humanity,
> try to be positive, try to look on the situation from
> another point of view, the one which is not depressive.
> i hope my question & answer summary upgraded your level of tomcat
> understanding.
> and that's a good thing, because you wouldn't understand connectors &
> async servlets
> so well, if i didn't post the question in the first place and make the
> answer summary
> in the second. i've already thanked both talkers, which makes me a very
> nice person :)
> and even though slow pid still doesn't understand anything and arrogant
> mark still
> searches for insignificant typos in my posts, i don't blame them for who
> they are :)
> i hope everyone enjoyed the thread. thanks everyone. behave well :)
LMAO, let's see your garbage collector implementation, then we'll judge.
p
> On 1/28/2012 8:36 PM, André Warnier wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Your original question was
>>
>> quote
>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>> connectors?
>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>> Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to
>> get the advantages?
>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>> unquote
>>
>> and your conclusion is :
>>
>>> well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff and arrogance:
>>>
>>> 1. nio connector is useful when one needs to handle a lot of
>>> client connections, keep-alive ones, for example.
>>> 2. async servlet is useful when one app thread can fulfill many
>>> responses.
>>> 3. communication between connector and async servlet should be called
>>> semi-async, rather than async, because request processing is
>>> sync anyway, although response processing is async.
>>>
>>> that could be a simple answer for my question in the first place.
>>> everything else is triteness.
>>> thanks anyway :)
>>> thread can be closed now.
>>>
>>
>> If it were to happen that you would have a further need to make use of
>> this list (or another similar help forum), may I suggest
>> that you fist read and ponder the document at
>> http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.
>> And if you have read it already, read it again, because you would seem
>> to have missed its quintessence.
>>
>> I have just been watching this thread, as the underlying technique is
>> far above my level.
>> But to answer your claims of arrogance and triteness :
>>
>> It already took several exchanges to get you to correct the mistakes
>> (or should I say the chaff?) in your question, which made
>> it close to nonsensical in the first place.
>> When the persons here who try to help posters in their enquiries asked
>> you for clarification, your responses seemed to imply
>> that they should have been smart enough to correct your own messiness,
>> and that you could barely bother yourself to do so.
>> Even after correction, your original questions were so open-ended that
>> answering them in the manner you seemed to want, would
>> have amounted to providing a free training manual in Connector code
>> and the relevant aspects of the Servlet Specification.
>> But throughout, you sounded as if such an answer was just your due,
>> although you are neither paying for the software nor for the
>> help. You did not appear to make any effort in providing information
>> allowing the persons who were trying to help, to at least
>> be able to focus their explanations and save their time (and yours).
>> By doing this, you managed to goad someone into spending the time to
>> correct your misunderstandings and misconceptions, and out
>> of their comprehensive answers you then magnanimously extracted what
>> was important for you, discarding the rest as chaff and
>> triteness.
>> So in the end you got what you probably wanted, and which you could
>> have gotten much faster, and at less expense of someone
>> else's time, if you had made an effort to write correct and focused
>> questions in the first place.
>> In this process, you also managed to expose yourself as an arrogant
>> and egotistical asshole. I hope that the trade-off is worth
>> it to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
andre, i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings and trust in humanity,
try to be positive, try to look on the situation from
another point of view, the one which is not depressive.
i hope my question & answer summary upgraded your level of tomcat understanding.
and that's a good thing, because you wouldn't understand connectors & async servlets
so well, if i didn't post the question in the first place and make the answer summary
in the second. i've already thanked both talkers, which makes me a very nice person :)
and even though slow pid still doesn't understand anything and arrogant mark still
searches for insignificant typos in my posts, i don't blame them for who they are :)
i hope everyone enjoyed the thread. thanks everyone. behave well :)
On 1/28/2012 8:36 PM, André Warnier wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Your original question was
>
> quote
> 1. What are the premises to use either apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
> connectors?
> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with Http11NioProtocol connector or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to
> get the advantages?
> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
> unquote
>
> and your conclusion is :
>
>> well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff and arrogance:
>>
>> 1. nio connector is useful when one needs to handle a lot of
>> client connections, keep-alive ones, for example.
>> 2. async servlet is useful when one app thread can fulfill many responses.
>> 3. communication between connector and async servlet should be called
>> semi-async, rather than async, because request processing is
>> sync anyway, although response processing is async.
>>
>> that could be a simple answer for my question in the first place.
>> everything else is triteness.
>> thanks anyway :)
>> thread can be closed now.
>>
>
> If it were to happen that you would have a further need to make use of this list (or another similar help forum), may I suggest
> that you fist read and ponder the document at http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.
> And if you have read it already, read it again, because you would seem to have missed its quintessence.
>
> I have just been watching this thread, as the underlying technique is far above my level.
> But to answer your claims of arrogance and triteness :
>
> It already took several exchanges to get you to correct the mistakes (or should I say the chaff?) in your question, which made
> it close to nonsensical in the first place.
> When the persons here who try to help posters in their enquiries asked you for clarification, your responses seemed to imply
> that they should have been smart enough to correct your own messiness, and that you could barely bother yourself to do so.
> Even after correction, your original questions were so open-ended that answering them in the manner you seemed to want, would
> have amounted to providing a free training manual in Connector code and the relevant aspects of the Servlet Specification.
> But throughout, you sounded as if such an answer was just your due, although you are neither paying for the software nor for the
> help. You did not appear to make any effort in providing information allowing the persons who were trying to help, to at least
> be able to focus their explanations and save their time (and yours).
> By doing this, you managed to goad someone into spending the time to correct your misunderstandings and misconceptions, and out
> of their comprehensive answers you then magnanimously extracted what was important for you, discarding the rest as chaff and
> triteness.
> So in the end you got what you probably wanted, and which you could have gotten much faster, and at less expense of someone
> else's time, if you had made an effort to write correct and focused questions in the first place.
> In this process, you also managed to expose yourself as an arrogant and egotistical asshole. I hope that the trade-off is worth
> it to you.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Hi.
Your original question was
quote
1. What are the premises to use either apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with Http11NioProtocol connector or
do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get the advantages?
3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
unquote
and your conclusion is :
> well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff and arrogance:
>
> 1. nio connector is useful when one needs to handle a lot of
> client connections, keep-alive ones, for example.
> 2. async servlet is useful when one app thread can fulfill many responses.
> 3. communication between connector and async servlet should be called
> semi-async, rather than async, because request processing is
> sync anyway, although response processing is async.
>
> that could be a simple answer for my question in the first place.
> everything else is triteness.
> thanks anyway :)
> thread can be closed now.
>
If it were to happen that you would have a further need to make use of this list (or
another similar help forum), may I suggest that you fist read and ponder the document at
http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.
And if you have read it already, read it again, because you would seem to have missed its
quintessence.
I have just been watching this thread, as the underlying technique is far above my level.
But to answer your claims of arrogance and triteness :
It already took several exchanges to get you to correct the mistakes (or should I say the
chaff?) in your question, which made it close to nonsensical in the first place.
When the persons here who try to help posters in their enquiries asked you for
clarification, your responses seemed to imply that they should have been smart enough to
correct your own messiness, and that you could barely bother yourself to do so.
Even after correction, your original questions were so open-ended that answering them in
the manner you seemed to want, would have amounted to providing a free training manual in
Connector code and the relevant aspects of the Servlet Specification.
But throughout, you sounded as if such an answer was just your due, although you are
neither paying for the software nor for the help. You did not appear to make any effort in
providing information allowing the persons who were trying to help, to at least be able to
focus their explanations and save their time (and yours).
By doing this, you managed to goad someone into spending the time to correct your
misunderstandings and misconceptions, and out of their comprehensive answers you then
magnanimously extracted what was important for you, discarding the rest as chaff and
triteness.
So in the end you got what you probably wanted, and which you could have gotten much
faster, and at less expense of someone else's time, if you had made an effort to write
correct and focused questions in the first place.
In this process, you also managed to expose yourself as an arrogant and egotistical
asshole. I hope that the trade-off is worth it to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
well, let's separate the wheat from the chaff and arrogance:
1. nio connector is useful when one needs to handle a lot of
client connections, keep-alive ones, for example.
2. async servlet is useful when one app thread can fulfill many responses.
3. communication between connector and async servlet should be called
semi-async, rather than async, because request processing is
sync anyway, although response processing is async.
that could be a simple answer for my question in the first place.
everything else is triteness.
thanks anyway :)
thread can be closed now.
On 1/28/2012 3:59 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 23:16, bxqdev wrote:
>>>> 2. async servlet api is not much usefull for servers, with nio
>>>> connectors (tomcat-7). at least you can't image the case.
>>>
>>> I don't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
>>
>> well, then what's the case to use both of this technologies? can you
>> make up a theoretical case for an example?
>
> Yes. See below.
>
>>>> 3. async servlet api is some general technology to decouple client from
>>>> server, when server doesn't have nio connector (server is bio-only).
>>>
>>> No. The Servlet Async API and the considerations for when one might use
>>> it are completely orthogonal to connector selection.
>>
>> how is that? both connector and servlet process user http request. one
>> by one. how are they orthogonal?
>
> The Servlet API, including the Async API only provides blocking IO.
>
> I will ignore the APR/native connector since that just complicates
> things further and just consider the BIO and NIO connectors below.
>
> The fundamental difference is that BIO requires one thread per
> connection whereas NIO requires one thread per currently processing
> request plus a few threads for the pollers. Each poller can monitor
> several thousand connections.
>
> Therefore in a situation where you have many more connections than you
> have current requests (think lots of HTTP keep-alive) then NIO scales
> significantly better than BIO. The (very small) price you pay is
> performance since using a poller adds overhead to request processing.
>
> [1] shows that the NIO connector uses non-blocking IO where it can but
> as soon as it enters the realm of the Servlet API (reading the request
> body and writing the request response) it has to simulate blocking IO.
>
> There is actually a complication to BIO in newer versions of Tomcat.
> Rather than dedicating one thread to a connection, each time Tomcat
> needs to read from a connection (remember this is blocking IO and there
> might not be anything to read if the connection is in keep-alive but the
> thread will then block until some data turns up or the connection times
> out) Tomcat obtains a thread from an executor. This raises the
> possibility of having more connections than you have threads. With BIO
> that is usually bad and results in unexpected delays in processing
> requests but as we'll see shortly, there are times (not many) where it
> might be useful.
>
>
> Prior to the Servlet 3.0 Async API a single container thread was
> responsible for all of the processing associated with a request.
>
> A few points to note at this point:
> - All IO is still blocking IO
> - The async API is only for writing data to the response. There is no
> "async" reading of data from the client.
>
> A typical usage of the Servlet 3.0 Async API is as follows:
> - request processing starts as usual on a container thread
> - async is started
> - the container thread is returned to the container's thread pool
> - processing continues on an application thread
> - the application writes some data to the response
> - the application passes the response back to the container for the
> container to finish it off on a container thread
>
> The purpose of the Servlet 3.0 Async API is to remove the one thread per
> currently processing request constraint.
>
> This allows applications to do things like:
> - implement a stock ticker with one thread writing to many responses
> (rather than one thread per response)
> - implement a chat program with one thread writing to all the clients
> (rather than one thread per response)
>
> If applications relay on external resources that are known to take a
> long time to respond, prior to the Async API developers had no choice
> but to simply block waiting for the external resource to respond. With
> the Async API, a single thread can monitor an external resource on
> behalf of many requests and only dispatch the request/response pair to a
> container thread for processing when the external resource has replied.
> This allows for more efficient use of container threads.
>
> Now back to the BIO complication. Lets say you have 100 container
> threads configured on your BIO connector and you are absolutely sure
> that at any one time 20% of your incoming connections would be using
> Servlet 3 Async and would be being handled by an application thread then
> you could set maxConnections to 120 and service 120 users in parallel.
> Your assumption regarding the 20% was wrong then you would see
> potentially long delays in processing incoming requests as connections
> with data were waiting for a container thread to become available to
> process it.
>
>
> So back to my original point. BIO vs NIO and Servlet 3 Sync vs Async are
> solving orthogonal problems.
>
> If you use an NIO connector that doesn't help you write a chat
> application more efficiently. You would still need one thread per
> client. For that you need the Servlet 3.0 Async API.
>
> The Async API does not help you efficiently handle many thousands of
> connections when the majority of them are in HTTP keep-alive. For that
> you need the NIO connector.
>
> Different problems, different solutions.
>
>>> I am getting rather bored with this. Please go and read up on blocking
>>> IO vs. non-blocking IO and then read the Async parts of the Servlet 3.0
>>> specification. Then come back here and try asking some more focussed
>>> questions.
>>
>> i completely understand the difference of bio vs. nio. and i've already
>> read async servlet spec.
>
> Clearly that is not the case. If it were, we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.
>
>> both technologies decouple (make async) input and output. but i can't
>> imagine the case when the one
>> would need two points of decoupling on one processing chain.
>
> That is because you failed to understand what the two different
> technologies were doing.
>
>> 1. bio connector& sync servlet
>> 1.1 i guess everything is obvious
> Apparently not.
>
>> 2. bio connector& async servlet
>> 2.1 bio connector receives request and synchronously handles it to async
>> servlet
>> 2.2 async servlet starts async processing code and returns.
>> 2.3 bio connector waits async servlet to finish
> Not correct. See comments re executor above. The BIO connector will not
> try to read from the connection until after the response has been
> completed (step 2.5 below).
>
>> 2.4 async servlet fullfills response
>> 2.5 bio connector returns servlet to client
> It is the response that is returned, not the servlet.
one..
>
>> 3. nio connector& sync servlet
>> 3.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
>> 3.2 nio connector handles request to sync servlet
>> 3.3 sync servlet processes request and return response
>> 3.4 nio connector makes select and receives http response from sync servlet
> Not correct. All IO is required to be blocking at this point. See [1]
> and comments above on simulated blocking.
>
>> 3.5 nio connector returns servlet to client
> Again, it is the response rather than the servlet that is returned.
two..
>
>> 4. nio connector& async servlet
>> 4.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
>> 4.2 nio connector handles request to async servlet
>> 4.3 async servlet starts async processing code.
>> 4.4 async servlet fullfills response
>> 4.5 nio connector makes select and receives http response from async
>> servlet
> Not correct. All IO is required to be blocking at this point. See [1]
> and comments above on simulated blocking.
>
>> 4.6 nio connector returns servlet to client
> Again, it is the response rather than the servlet that is returned.
three..
>
>> uh, that was a lot of typing :)
>
> You don't appear to understand the relationships between the blocking IO
> APIs provided in the Servlet API and how that data gets to the socket
> (via a few buffers). It looks like you are assuming that the servlet
> processing and the connectors exist in separate components with separate
> thread pools and some form of IO connection between them. That is not
> the case (and would be pointless and hopelessly inefficient since the
> Servlet API uses blocking IO). It is the threads from the connector
> thread pool that are responsible for the request processing.
>
> Mark "Boredom" Thomas
>
>
> [1]
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/http.html#Connector_Comparison
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 23:16, bxqdev wrote:
>>> 2. async servlet api is not much usefull for servers, with nio
>>> connectors (tomcat-7). at least you can't image the case.
>>
>> I don't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
>
> well, then what's the case to use both of this technologies? can you
> make up a theoretical case for an example?
Yes. See below.
>>> 3. async servlet api is some general technology to decouple client from
>>> server, when server doesn't have nio connector (server is bio-only).
>>
>> No. The Servlet Async API and the considerations for when one might use
>> it are completely orthogonal to connector selection.
>
> how is that? both connector and servlet process user http request. one
> by one. how are they orthogonal?
The Servlet API, including the Async API only provides blocking IO.
I will ignore the APR/native connector since that just complicates
things further and just consider the BIO and NIO connectors below.
The fundamental difference is that BIO requires one thread per
connection whereas NIO requires one thread per currently processing
request plus a few threads for the pollers. Each poller can monitor
several thousand connections.
Therefore in a situation where you have many more connections than you
have current requests (think lots of HTTP keep-alive) then NIO scales
significantly better than BIO. The (very small) price you pay is
performance since using a poller adds overhead to request processing.
[1] shows that the NIO connector uses non-blocking IO where it can but
as soon as it enters the realm of the Servlet API (reading the request
body and writing the request response) it has to simulate blocking IO.
There is actually a complication to BIO in newer versions of Tomcat.
Rather than dedicating one thread to a connection, each time Tomcat
needs to read from a connection (remember this is blocking IO and there
might not be anything to read if the connection is in keep-alive but the
thread will then block until some data turns up or the connection times
out) Tomcat obtains a thread from an executor. This raises the
possibility of having more connections than you have threads. With BIO
that is usually bad and results in unexpected delays in processing
requests but as we'll see shortly, there are times (not many) where it
might be useful.
Prior to the Servlet 3.0 Async API a single container thread was
responsible for all of the processing associated with a request.
A few points to note at this point:
- All IO is still blocking IO
- The async API is only for writing data to the response. There is no
"async" reading of data from the client.
A typical usage of the Servlet 3.0 Async API is as follows:
- request processing starts as usual on a container thread
- async is started
- the container thread is returned to the container's thread pool
- processing continues on an application thread
- the application writes some data to the response
- the application passes the response back to the container for the
container to finish it off on a container thread
The purpose of the Servlet 3.0 Async API is to remove the one thread per
currently processing request constraint.
This allows applications to do things like:
- implement a stock ticker with one thread writing to many responses
(rather than one thread per response)
- implement a chat program with one thread writing to all the clients
(rather than one thread per response)
If applications relay on external resources that are known to take a
long time to respond, prior to the Async API developers had no choice
but to simply block waiting for the external resource to respond. With
the Async API, a single thread can monitor an external resource on
behalf of many requests and only dispatch the request/response pair to a
container thread for processing when the external resource has replied.
This allows for more efficient use of container threads.
Now back to the BIO complication. Lets say you have 100 container
threads configured on your BIO connector and you are absolutely sure
that at any one time 20% of your incoming connections would be using
Servlet 3 Async and would be being handled by an application thread then
you could set maxConnections to 120 and service 120 users in parallel.
Your assumption regarding the 20% was wrong then you would see
potentially long delays in processing incoming requests as connections
with data were waiting for a container thread to become available to
process it.
So back to my original point. BIO vs NIO and Servlet 3 Sync vs Async are
solving orthogonal problems.
If you use an NIO connector that doesn't help you write a chat
application more efficiently. You would still need one thread per
client. For that you need the Servlet 3.0 Async API.
The Async API does not help you efficiently handle many thousands of
connections when the majority of them are in HTTP keep-alive. For that
you need the NIO connector.
Different problems, different solutions.
>> I am getting rather bored with this. Please go and read up on blocking
>> IO vs. non-blocking IO and then read the Async parts of the Servlet 3.0
>> specification. Then come back here and try asking some more focussed
>> questions.
>
> i completely understand the difference of bio vs. nio. and i've already
> read async servlet spec.
Clearly that is not the case. If it were, we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
> both technologies decouple (make async) input and output. but i can't
> imagine the case when the one
> would need two points of decoupling on one processing chain.
That is because you failed to understand what the two different
technologies were doing.
> 1. bio connector & sync servlet
> 1.1 i guess everything is obvious
Apparently not.
> 2. bio connector & async servlet
> 2.1 bio connector receives request and synchronously handles it to async
> servlet
> 2.2 async servlet starts async processing code and returns.
> 2.3 bio connector waits async servlet to finish
Not correct. See comments re executor above. The BIO connector will not
try to read from the connection until after the response has been
completed (step 2.5 below).
> 2.4 async servlet fullfills response
> 2.5 bio connector returns servlet to client
It is the response that is returned, not the servlet.
> 3. nio connector & sync servlet
> 3.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
> 3.2 nio connector handles request to sync servlet
> 3.3 sync servlet processes request and return response
> 3.4 nio connector makes select and receives http response from sync servlet
Not correct. All IO is required to be blocking at this point. See [1]
and comments above on simulated blocking.
> 3.5 nio connector returns servlet to client
Again, it is the response rather than the servlet that is returned.
> 4. nio connector & async servlet
> 4.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
> 4.2 nio connector handles request to async servlet
> 4.3 async servlet starts async processing code.
> 4.4 async servlet fullfills response
> 4.5 nio connector makes select and receives http response from async
> servlet
Not correct. All IO is required to be blocking at this point. See [1]
and comments above on simulated blocking.
> 4.6 nio connector returns servlet to client
Again, it is the response rather than the servlet that is returned.
> uh, that was a lot of typing :)
You don't appear to understand the relationships between the blocking IO
APIs provided in the Servlet API and how that data gets to the socket
(via a few buffers). It looks like you are assuming that the servlet
processing and the connectors exist in separate components with separate
thread pools and some form of IO connection between them. That is not
the case (and would be pointless and hopelessly inefficient since the
Servlet API uses blocking IO). It is the threads from the connector
thread pool that are responsible for the request processing.
Mark
[1]
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/http.html#Connector_Comparison
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 2:49 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 22:41, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 2:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 22:22, bxqdev wrote:
>>>> ok, so what about this case:
>>>> http nio connector + async servlet
>>>> i would say that in this variant there're 2 points of asynchronism -
>>>> both connector and servlet code are async.
>>>> is there a case when i would need such a combination?
>>>
>>> Where someone might need that? Sure. Where you would need it? No idea.
>>> My crystal ball is looking rather foggy at the moment. If you have a
>>> specific question about a specific use case...
>>
>> so can i say that:
>> 1. if one needs to decouple client from nio server (tomcat-7), nio
>> connector can be used to solve that.
>
> Define "decouple".
make client connection and servlet code execute in different threads. asynchronously.
>
>> 2. async servlet api is not much usefull for servers, with nio
>> connectors (tomcat-7). at least you can't image the case.
>
> I don't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
well, then what's the case to use both of this technologies? can you make up a theoretical case for an example?
>
>> 3. async servlet api is some general technology to decouple client from
>> server, when server doesn't have nio connector (server is bio-only).
>
> No. The Servlet Async API and the considerations for when one might use
> it are completely orthogonal to connector selection.
how is that? both connector and servlet process user http request. one by one. how are they orthogonal?
>
> I am getting rather bored with this. Please go and read up on blocking
> IO vs. non-blocking IO and then read the Async parts of the Servlet 3.0
> specification. Then come back here and try asking some more focussed
> questions.
i completely understand the difference of bio vs. nio. and i've already read async servlet spec.
both technologies decouple (make async) input and output. but i can't imagine the case when the one
would need two points of decoupling on one processing chain.
1. bio connector & sync servlet
1.1 i guess everything is obvious
2. bio connector & async servlet
2.1 bio connector receives request and synchronously handles it to async servlet
2.2 async servlet starts async processing code and returns.
2.3 bio connector waits async servlet to finish
2.4 async servlet fullfills response
2.5 bio connector returns servlet to client
3. nio connector & sync servlet
3.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
3.2 nio connector handles request to sync servlet
3.3 sync servlet processes request and return response
3.4 nio connector makes select and receives http response from sync servlet
3.5 nio connector returns servlet to client
4. nio connector & async servlet
4.1 nio connector makes select and receives http request
4.2 nio connector handles request to async servlet
4.3 async servlet starts async processing code.
4.4 async servlet fullfills response
4.5 nio connector makes select and receives http response from async servlet
4.6 nio connector returns servlet to client
uh, that was a lot of typing :)
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 22:41, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 2:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 22:22, bxqdev wrote:
>>> ok, so what about this case:
>>> http nio connector + async servlet
>>> i would say that in this variant there're 2 points of asynchronism -
>>> both connector and servlet code are async.
>>> is there a case when i would need such a combination?
>>
>> Where someone might need that? Sure. Where you would need it? No idea.
>> My crystal ball is looking rather foggy at the moment. If you have a
>> specific question about a specific use case...
>
> so can i say that:
> 1. if one needs to decouple client from nio server (tomcat-7), nio
> connector can be used to solve that.
Define "decouple".
> 2. async servlet api is not much usefull for servers, with nio
> connectors (tomcat-7). at least you can't image the case.
I don't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
> 3. async servlet api is some general technology to decouple client from
> server, when server doesn't have nio connector (server is bio-only).
No. The Servlet Async API and the considerations for when one might use
it are completely orthogonal to connector selection.
I am getting rather bored with this. Please go and read up on blocking
IO vs. non-blocking IO and then read the Async parts of the Servlet 3.0
specification. Then come back here and try asking some more focussed
questions.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 2:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 22:22, bxqdev wrote:
>> ok, so what about this case:
>> http nio connector + async servlet
>> i would say that in this variant there're 2 points of asynchronism -
>> both connector and servlet code are async.
>> is there a case when i would need such a combination?
>
> Where someone might need that? Sure. Where you would need it? No idea.
> My crystal ball is looking rather foggy at the moment. If you have a
> specific question about a specific use case...
so can i say that:
1. if one needs to decouple client from nio server (tomcat-7), nio connector can be used to solve that.
2. async servlet api is not much usefull for servers, with nio connectors (tomcat-7). at least you can't image the case.
3. async servlet api is some general technology to decouple client from server, when server doesn't have nio connector (server
is bio-only).
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 22:22, bxqdev wrote:
> ok, so what about this case:
> http nio connector + async servlet
> i would say that in this variant there're 2 points of asynchronism -
> both connector and servlet code are async.
> is there a case when i would need such a combination?
Where someone might need that? Sure. Where you would need it? No idea.
My crystal ball is looking rather foggy at the moment. If you have a
specific question about a specific use case...
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 1:53 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 21:31, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 1:14 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 21:03, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2012 8:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such protocol as
>>>>> "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
>>>>> if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
>>>>
>>>> i assume you can guess that it's
>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>>>
>>> In which case they are identical since you are specifying the same class
>>> name.
>>
>> oh, i see. well, nio or io connectors. that's what i mean.
>
> There is no "IO" connector. Tomcat 7 supports three connector variants:
> BIO, NIO& APR/native. There are separate implementations of each for
> the HTTP and AJP protocols.
well, i mean bio and nio connectors for http.
>
>>> I suspect you need to read up (generally) on the differences between
>>> blocking and non-blocking IO.
>>
>> i know the differences.
>
> Then why are you asking such basic questions about the differences
> between non-blocking IO and blocking IO?
nevermind.
>
>> but it looks like there's 2 points of choice:
>> 1. nio vs. io in connectors
>> 2. nio vs. io in servlet api
>
> There is no NIO support in the Servlet spec. The Servlet API uses
> entirely blocking IO throughout.
>
> There is Async support in Servlet 3.0 onwards which could be viewed as a
> form of non-blocking IO I guess but is really just a way to de-couple
> writing to the response and the thread processing the request/response pair.
yes, that's what i call async servlet api.
>
>> i don't understand how this choices are related.
>
> They aren't. If you want to understand what Servlet 3.0 async is, you
> need to read the Servlet 3.0 spec.
>
>>>> How are connector and servlet code related?
>>>
>>> Again, read the docs:
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/architecture/requestProcess/requestProcess.pdf
>>>
>>
>> i will. didn't know about the existence of that document.
>>
>>>
>>> It is slightly old and probably not completely correct in all details
>>> for 7.0.x but should be good enough.
>>
>> that's bad. maybe you could explain in few words, as an expert?
>
> No fundamental changes. Replace thread pools with executors and the
> detail of the Protocol / Processor / Endpoint relationships (which is
> important to understand as soon as you starting working with the code)
> isn't shown but you don't really need that. Also, the Async behaviour
> isn't shown.
ok, so what about this case:
http nio connector + async servlet
i would say that in this variant there're 2 points of asynchronism -
both connector and servlet code are async.
is there a case when i would need such a combination?
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 21:31, bxqdev wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2012 1:14 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 21:03, bxqdev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/27/2012 8:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>>
>>>> There is no such protocol as
>>>> "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
>>>> if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
>>>
>>> i assume you can guess that it's
>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>>
>> In which case they are identical since you are specifying the same class
>> name.
>
> oh, i see. well, nio or io connectors. that's what i mean.
There is no "IO" connector. Tomcat 7 supports three connector variants:
BIO, NIO & APR/native. There are separate implementations of each for
the HTTP and AJP protocols.
>> I suspect you need to read up (generally) on the differences between
>> blocking and non-blocking IO.
>
> i know the differences.
Then why are you asking such basic questions about the differences
between non-blocking IO and blocking IO?
> but it looks like there's 2 points of choice:
> 1. nio vs. io in connectors
> 2. nio vs. io in servlet api
There is no NIO support in the Servlet spec. The Servlet API uses
entirely blocking IO throughout.
There is Async support in Servlet 3.0 onwards which could be viewed as a
form of non-blocking IO I guess but is really just a way to de-couple
writing to the response and the thread processing the request/response pair.
> i don't understand how this choices are related.
They aren't. If you want to understand what Servlet 3.0 async is, you
need to read the Servlet 3.0 spec.
>>> How are connector and servlet code related?
>>
>> Again, read the docs:
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/architecture/requestProcess/requestProcess.pdf
>>
>
> i will. didn't know about the existence of that document.
>
>>
>> It is slightly old and probably not completely correct in all details
>> for 7.0.x but should be good enough.
>
> that's bad. maybe you could explain in few words, as an expert?
No fundamental changes. Replace thread pools with executors and the
detail of the Protocol / Processor / Endpoint relationships (which is
important to understand as soon as you starting working with the code)
isn't shown but you don't really need that. Also, the Async behaviour
isn't shown.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/28/2012 1:14 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 21:03, bxqdev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2012 8:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>>
>>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>>
>>> There is no such protocol as "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
>>> if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
>>
>> i assume you can guess that it's org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>
> In which case they are identical since you are specifying the same class
> name.
oh, i see. well, nio or io connectors. that's what i mean.
>
>>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>>> Http11NioProtocol connector
>>> Yes.
>>
>> What are they?
>
> As per the docs. You even quoted the comparison.
>
>>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>>> a) Understand your requirements
>>> b) Read the docs, particularly [1]
>>> c) Choose the connector that best meets your requirements.
>>
>> it's a bit abstract.
>
> I suspect you need to read up (generally) on the differences between
> blocking and non-blocking IO.
i know the differences. but it looks like there's 2 points of choice:
1. nio vs. io in connectors
2. nio vs. io in servlet api
i don't understand how this choices are related.
>
>> Java Blocking Connector Java Nio Blocking
>> Connector
>> BIO NIO
>> Classname Http11Protocol Http11NioProtocol
>> Tomcat Version 3.x onwards 6.x onwards
>> Support Polling NO YES
>> Polling Size N/A maxConnections
>> Read HTTP Request Blocking Non Blocking
>> Read HTTP Body Blocking Sim Blocking
>> Write HTTP Response Blocking Sim Blocking
>> Wait for next Request Blocking Non Blocking
>> SSL Support Java SSL Java SSL
>> SSL Handshake Blocking Non blocking
>> Max Connections maxConnections maxConnections
>>
>> It doesn't show how that corresponds to Sync vs Async Servlet APIs.
>
> Because there is no correlation.
great. i thought there was though.
>
>> actually it's interesting to know about the following cases:
>> 1. Sync Servlet + Non Bloking NIO Connector
>> 2. Async Servlet + Bloking IO Connector
>
> Know what? They both work. How well they work will depend on many
> factors outside of Tomcat's control.
ok.
>
>> How are connector and servlet code related?
>
> Again, read the docs:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/architecture/requestProcess/requestProcess.pdf
i will. didn't know about the existence of that document.
>
> It is slightly old and probably not completely correct in all details
> for 7.0.x but should be good enough.
that's bad. maybe you could explain in few words, as an expert?
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 21:03, bxqdev wrote:
>
>
> On 1/27/2012 8:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>>> Hello, Developers!
>>>
>>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>>
>> There is no such protocol as "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
>> if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
>
> i assume you can guess that it's org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
In which case they are identical since you are specifying the same class
name.
>>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>>> Http11NioProtocol connector
>> Yes.
>
> What are they?
As per the docs. You even quoted the comparison.
>>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
>> a) Understand your requirements
>> b) Read the docs, particularly [1]
>> c) Choose the connector that best meets your requirements.
>
> it's a bit abstract.
I suspect you need to read up (generally) on the differences between
blocking and non-blocking IO.
> Java Blocking Connector Java Nio Blocking
> Connector
> BIO NIO
> Classname Http11Protocol Http11NioProtocol
> Tomcat Version 3.x onwards 6.x onwards
> Support Polling NO YES
> Polling Size N/A maxConnections
> Read HTTP Request Blocking Non Blocking
> Read HTTP Body Blocking Sim Blocking
> Write HTTP Response Blocking Sim Blocking
> Wait for next Request Blocking Non Blocking
> SSL Support Java SSL Java SSL
> SSL Handshake Blocking Non blocking
> Max Connections maxConnections maxConnections
>
> It doesn't show how that corresponds to Sync vs Async Servlet APIs.
Because there is no correlation.
> actually it's interesting to know about the following cases:
> 1. Sync Servlet + Non Bloking NIO Connector
> 2. Async Servlet + Bloking IO Connector
Know what? They both work. How well they work will depend on many
factors outside of Tomcat's control.
> How are connector and servlet code related?
Again, read the docs:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/architecture/requestProcess/requestProcess.pdf
It is slightly old and probably not completely correct in all details
for 7.0.x but should be good enough.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by bxqdev <bx...@themailbay.com>.
On 1/27/2012 8:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
>> Hello, Developers!
>>
>> 1. What are the premises to use either
>> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
>> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
>
> There is no such protocol as "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
> if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
i assume you can guess that it's org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol
>
>> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
>> Http11NioProtocol connector
> Yes.
What are they?
>
>> or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
>> the advantages?
> No.
ok
>
>> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
> a) Understand your requirements
> b) Read the docs, particularly [1]
> c) Choose the connector that best meets your requirements.
it's a bit abstract.
Java Blocking Connector Java Nio Blocking Connector
BIO NIO
Classname Http11Protocol Http11NioProtocol
Tomcat Version 3.x onwards 6.x onwards
Support Polling NO YES
Polling Size N/A maxConnections
Read HTTP Request Blocking Non Blocking
Read HTTP Body Blocking Sim Blocking
Write HTTP Response Blocking Sim Blocking
Wait for next Request Blocking Non Blocking
SSL Support Java SSL Java SSL
SSL Handshake Blocking Non blocking
Max Connections maxConnections maxConnections
It doesn't show how that corresponds to Sync vs Async Servlet APIs.
actually it's interesting to know about the following cases:
1. Sync Servlet + Non Bloking NIO Connector
2. Async Servlet + Bloking IO Connector
How are connector and servlet code related?
>
> Mark
>
> [1]
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/http.html#Connector_Comparison
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Connectors: Http11Protocol vs. Http11NioProtocol
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 27/01/2012 14:53, bxqdev wrote:
> Hello, Developers!
>
> 1. What are the premises to use either
> apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol or
> org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol connectors?
There is no such protocol as "apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol" so
if you try using it, that connector will fail to start.
> 2. Do i get any advantages if i use Sync Servlet Api with
> Http11NioProtocol connector
Yes.
> or do i have to use Async Servlet Api to get
> the advantages?
No.
> 3. How do i choose which one to use in any particular case?
a) Understand your requirements
b) Read the docs, particularly [1]
c) Choose the connector that best meets your requirements.
Mark
[1]
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/http.html#Connector_Comparison
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org