You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> on 2009/05/18 21:30:48 UTC
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
- - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
- - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
- - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
certain number of requests
I have some preliminary results. Just as a smoke-test, I ran my tests
for 10 seconds each (10 seconds per file size, per server config) which
means that I can get a complete set of results in 15 minutes. The
results are borderline useless, but you can already start to see the
different configurations differentiate themselves:
File Size Apache httpd Coyote Coyote APR Coyote APR -sendfile Coyote
NIO Coyote NIO –sendfile
4KiB 4984.02 3833.73 5674.66 5433.23 3128.34 3247.66
8KiB 8795.03 7468.45 9465.31 10015.06 5616.81 5674.44
16KiB 15913.38 12901.21 16437.40 16426.36 10316.27 10171.56
32KiB 27525.07 21270.07 25361.09 25557.25 17482.09 17803.41
64KiB 47500.61 32990.81 38590.02 37454.34 31113.93 27034.23
128KiB 63920.72 42161.17 58548.64 46011.54 7167.93 31891.99
256KiB 80030.02 51749.21 82274.47 54119.36 256.29 34057.95
512KiB 95386.27 45987.15 89375.52 49531.11 512.10 30722.53
1MiB 105059.69 50127.84 89988.79 50886.45 1020.18 31309.67
2MiB 99790.56 51408.41 95647.38 44390.74 2032.38 32697.59
4MiB 100633.5 51138.52 105273.11 54729.79 4424.93 34088.29
8MiB 99595.03 51523.92 98445.83 56116.61 7936.50 32557.95
16MiB 99126.65 51440.45 98111.82 55406.30 15400.82 32681.28
32MiB 99018.94 52719.74 96605.48 54410.23 28989.75 33275.04
Quick setup: single localhost client (no concurrency), no keepalives, 10
second max samples per file size per server config.
I re-ran the NIO+sendfile tests afterward since the server was busy
(recompiling gcc as well as serving HTTP requests to whomever happens to
be using it right now) and I figured it was a fluke. The second test
showed the same results: NIO looks great until it hits the 128KiB file,
when it experiences a dramatic drop-off in performance. I'll have to
look into that: the NIO connector /without/ sendfile enabled does not
appear to suffer the same drop-off in performance (though it appears to
be the weakest contender in the bunch).
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRt2gACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCqZgCeN6zXJFY0E5kquz5//CsnaFGN
ZIwAn3b++7waMKoi9iJ2X0pyocKK7d/5
=UWiA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
Posted by Peter Lin <wo...@gmail.com>.
If you need to serve static files for a high volume website, you're
better off paying a specialty provider for it. Back when I worked at
verizon, we used Akamai for static files like images etc.
serving up a ton of large static files quickly swamps your bandwidth,
so the question isn't whether that 4% matters. It's really about how
much bandwidth you're chewing up with static data. Unless the servers
are hosted at a Tier 1 provider with OC12 bandwidth or higher, it
really isn't going to make any difference from my experience.
peter
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robin Wilson <rw...@kingsisle.com> wrote:
> I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"... I guess that would depend on how many of those files you are serving a day... If I had 25 servers all working full-throttle all day, 4% would be enough to require 1 more server. If my peak load exceeds the necessary threshold, 4% could mean I get end-users seeing errors periodically through the day - even with much smaller configurations.
>
> Just something to think about...
>
> --
> Robin D. Wilson
> Director of Web Development
> KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
> WORK: 512-623-5913
> CELL: 512-426-3929
> www.KingsIsle.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robin,
>
> On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
>> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
>> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
>
> Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
> give me 12 solid hours of testing. /Those/ should be more definitive
> results. I've also rigged my test to prime the server by hitting each
> file a single time, then waiting a few seconds, then starting the real test.
>
>> This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for
>> files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or
>> more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger
>> files).
>
> Tomcat+APR is so close to httpd as to be in a dead heat as far as I'm
> concerned. We'll know more once the larger-scale tests have been run. If
> you graph these numbers (or read very carefully), you can see that
> Coyote+APR outperforms httpd for two of the samples.
>
> Also, the APR connector without sendfile is basically the same as using
> the "simple" Coyote connector. I suspect the same is true of the NIO
> connector, though it uses a different strategy for reading and writing,
> obviously.
>
> Something is obviously amiss with sendfile-enabled NIO connector,
> though. Suggestions from those who know would be appreciated.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoRxCEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBw1QCgs4g8fZk4ESSC7dDpVEZoAnah
> HmQAoJk7FshdtZlboIG+niTRy0Lb5zRP
> =6B0w
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content
performance[Revised/Updated]
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Robin Wilson [mailto:rwilson@kingsisle.com]
> Subject: RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content
> performance[Revised/Updated]
>
> I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"...
Given the likely variability of any measurements taken in an 8-second run, even 10% or 15% would have to be considered noise at this point. Also, platform variations (Chris' stuff is not state-of-the-art) may play a big role here, as does JVM level. (HotSpot 1.6 is dramatically faster than 1.5 for *some* applications.)
Wait for the real numbers.
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
Posted by Robin Wilson <rw...@kingsisle.com>.
I don't know if I'd call a 4% difference a "dead heat"... I guess that would depend on how many of those files you are serving a day... If I had 25 servers all working full-throttle all day, 4% would be enough to require 1 more server. If my peak load exceeds the necessary threshold, 4% could mean I get end-users seeing errors periodically through the day - even with much smaller configurations.
Just something to think about...
--
Robin D. Wilson
Director of Web Development
KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
WORK: 512-623-5913
CELL: 512-426-3929
www.KingsIsle.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
give me 12 solid hours of testing. /Those/ should be more definitive
results. I've also rigged my test to prime the server by hitting each
file a single time, then waiting a few seconds, then starting the real test.
> This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for
> files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or
> more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger
> files).
Tomcat+APR is so close to httpd as to be in a dead heat as far as I'm
concerned. We'll know more once the larger-scale tests have been run. If
you graph these numbers (or read very carefully), you can see that
Coyote+APR outperforms httpd for two of the samples.
Also, the APR connector without sendfile is basically the same as using
the "simple" Coyote connector. I suspect the same is true of the NIO
connector, though it uses a different strategy for reading and writing,
obviously.
Something is obviously amiss with sendfile-enabled NIO connector,
though. Suggestions from those who know would be appreciated.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRxCEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBw1QCgs4g8fZk4ESSC7dDpVEZoAnah
HmQAoJk7FshdtZlboIG+niTRy0Lb5zRP
=6B0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robin,
On 5/18/2009 4:11 PM, Robin Wilson wrote:
> Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed
> results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
Yup, that's the plan. Tonight, I'll be running with an 8 minute test to
give me 12 solid hours of testing. /Those/ should be more definitive
results. I've also rigged my test to prime the server by hitting each
file a single time, then waiting a few seconds, then starting the real test.
> This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for
> files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or
> more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger
> files).
Tomcat+APR is so close to httpd as to be in a dead heat as far as I'm
concerned. We'll know more once the larger-scale tests have been run. If
you graph these numbers (or read very carefully), you can see that
Coyote+APR outperforms httpd for two of the samples.
Also, the APR connector without sendfile is basically the same as using
the "simple" Coyote connector. I suspect the same is true of the NIO
connector, though it uses a different strategy for reading and writing,
obviously.
Something is obviously amiss with sendfile-enabled NIO connector,
though. Suggestions from those who know would be appreciated.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRxCEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBw1QCgs4g8fZk4ESSC7dDpVEZoAnah
HmQAoJk7FshdtZlboIG+niTRy0Lb5zRP
=6B0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
Posted by Robin Wilson <rw...@kingsisle.com>.
Thanks! This information isn't useless... Of course, more detailed results, after a longer test run would be more conclusive.
This appears to show that Apache is slightly faster (~4% or so) for files over 16KiB than Tomcat APR, and materially faster (~44% or more) than all other configurations of Tomcat (especially for larger files).
Does that sync with your understanding as well?
--
Robin D. Wilson
Director of Web Development
KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
WORK: 512-623-5913
CELL: 512-426-3929
www.KingsIsle.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
All,
After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
- - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
- - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
- - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
- - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
certain number of requests
I have some preliminary results. Just as a smoke-test, I ran my tests
for 10 seconds each (10 seconds per file size, per server config) which
means that I can get a complete set of results in 15 minutes. The
results are borderline useless, but you can already start to see the
different configurations differentiate themselves:
File Size Apache httpd Coyote CoyoteAPR CoyoteAPR-sendfile CoyoteNIO CoyoteNIO–sendfile
4KiB 4984.02 3833.73 5674.66 5433.23 3128.34 3247.66
8KiB 8795.03 7468.45 9465.31 10015.06 5616.81 5674.44
16KiB 15913.38 12901.21 16437.40 16426.36 10316.27 10171.56
32KiB 27525.07 21270.07 25361.09 25557.25 17482.09 17803.41
64KiB 47500.61 32990.81 38590.02 37454.34 31113.93 27034.23
128KiB 63920.72 42161.17 58548.64 46011.54 7167.93 31891.99
256KiB 80030.02 51749.21 82274.47 54119.36 256.29 34057.95
512KiB 95386.27 45987.15 89375.52 49531.11 512.10 30722.53
1MiB 105059.69 50127.84 89988.79 50886.45 1020.18 31309.67
2MiB 99790.56 51408.41 95647.38 44390.74 2032.38 32697.59
4MiB 100633.5 51138.52 105273.11 54729.79 4424.93 34088.29
8MiB 99595.03 51523.92 98445.83 56116.61 7936.50 32557.95
16MiB 99126.65 51440.45 98111.82 55406.30 15400.82 32681.28
32MiB 99018.94 52719.74 96605.48 54410.23 28989.75 33275.04
Quick setup: single localhost client (no concurrency), no keepalives, 10
second max samples per file size per server config.
I re-ran the NIO+sendfile tests afterward since the server was busy
(recompiling gcc as well as serving HTTP requests to whomever happens to
be using it right now) and I figured it was a fluke. The second test
showed the same results: NIO looks great until it hits the 128KiB file,
when it experiences a dramatic drop-off in performance. I'll have to
look into that: the NIO connector /without/ sendfile enabled does not
appear to suffer the same drop-off in performance (though it appears to
be the weakest contender in the bunch).
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRt2gACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCqZgCeN6zXJFY0E5kquz5//CsnaFGN
ZIwAn3b++7waMKoi9iJ2X0pyocKK7d/5
=UWiA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 5/18/2009 4:56 PM, André Warnier wrote:
> You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
> the seconds it took, so what are they ?
They are transfer Rate (KiB/sec) as measured by ApacheBench.
> I also wonder about the numbers, for example in the first column
> (httpd). They seem to grow more or less lineraly as the file size
> increases, but they at 512 KB they just level off.
> It seems a bit counter-intutive that it would take "the same whatever"
> to serve 512KB files and 32MB ones.
I suspect it is one of two things:
1. At ~512KiB the time to serve the files begins to dominate the time
while smaller files are being dominated by the time to open them
2. The HTTP headers are not being considered in the transfer rate
I think #2 is less likely, since the smallest file I'm working with is
4KiB and I suspect less than 1KiB is being taken up with HTTP headers.
If #2 were the culprit, I would have expected the inflection point to be
much earlier.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRzvcACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PALqQCfb5Bz1iMIoHUv+Lea/cIlKOTJ
lmUAnR8z+F8pgwW5qyl1tN/Hq7cPQpEN
=/Tsg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Chris, what do the numbers represent ?
You say you ran each test for 10 seconds, so I guess the numbers are not
the seconds it took, so what are they ?
I also wonder about the numbers, for example in the first column
(httpd). They seem to grow more or less lineraly as the file size
increases, but they at 512 KB they just level off.
It seems a bit counter-intutive that it would take "the same whatever"
to serve 512KB files and 32MB ones.
André
Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> All,
>
> After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
>
> - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
> - - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
> - - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
> - - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
> certain number of requests
>
> I have some preliminary results. Just as a smoke-test, I ran my tests
> for 10 seconds each (10 seconds per file size, per server config) which
> means that I can get a complete set of results in 15 minutes. The
> results are borderline useless, but you can already start to see the
> different configurations differentiate themselves:
>
> File Size Apache httpd Coyote Coyote APR Coyote APR -sendfile Coyote
> NIO Coyote NIO –sendfile
> 4KiB 4984.02 3833.73 5674.66 5433.23 3128.34 3247.66
> 8KiB 8795.03 7468.45 9465.31 10015.06 5616.81 5674.44
> 16KiB 15913.38 12901.21 16437.40 16426.36 10316.27 10171.56
> 32KiB 27525.07 21270.07 25361.09 25557.25 17482.09 17803.41
> 64KiB 47500.61 32990.81 38590.02 37454.34 31113.93 27034.23
> 128KiB 63920.72 42161.17 58548.64 46011.54 7167.93 31891.99
> 256KiB 80030.02 51749.21 82274.47 54119.36 256.29 34057.95
> 512KiB 95386.27 45987.15 89375.52 49531.11 512.10 30722.53
> 1MiB 105059.69 50127.84 89988.79 50886.45 1020.18 31309.67
> 2MiB 99790.56 51408.41 95647.38 44390.74 2032.38 32697.59
> 4MiB 100633.5 51138.52 105273.11 54729.79 4424.93 34088.29
> 8MiB 99595.03 51523.92 98445.83 56116.61 7936.50 32557.95
> 16MiB 99126.65 51440.45 98111.82 55406.30 15400.82 32681.28
> 32MiB 99018.94 52719.74 96605.48 54410.23 28989.75 33275.04
>
> Quick setup: single localhost client (no concurrency), no keepalives, 10
> second max samples per file size per server config.
>
> I re-ran the NIO+sendfile tests afterward since the server was busy
> (recompiling gcc as well as serving HTTP requests to whomever happens to
> be using it right now) and I figured it was a fluke. The second test
> showed the same results: NIO looks great until it hits the 128KiB file,
> when it experiences a dramatic drop-off in performance. I'll have to
> look into that: the NIO connector /without/ sendfile enabled does not
> appear to suffer the same drop-off in performance (though it appears to
> be the weakest contender in the bunch).
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoRt2gACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCqZgCeN6zXJFY0E5kquz5//CsnaFGN
> ZIwAn3b++7waMKoi9iJ2X0pyocKK7d/5
> =UWiA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance [Revised/Updated]
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/18/2009 4:40 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
>> [Revised/Updated]
>>
>> After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
>>
>> - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
>> - - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
>> - - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
>> - - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
>> certain number of requests
>
> JVM version?
Still:
java version "1.6.0_13"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_13-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 11.3-b02, mixed mode, sharing)
(don't worry, I'll also test the -server VM)
I'll also be publishing /all/ config information when I actually publish
my findings.
Still default heap (turns out to be 64MB for my config).
Interesting that after all my little 10-second tests, the JVM has only
allocated 11MiB of its 64MiB max, and it's about 75% (8MiB) used right
now. I have all connectors configured simultaneously, each with their
own thread pools: Coyote/non-APR, Coyote/APR+sendfile,
Coyote/APR-sendfile, Coyote/NIO+sendfile, Coyote/NIO-sendfile. Most
connectors have allocated fewer than 5 request processor threads.
We'll see what happens when I crank-up the concurrency. I suspect we'll
see better things from the NIO connector, for instance.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRyg4ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCcfwCfbwyxHYGBisMZy83kzFwoI4Vx
JhQAni3uwBGhlOIVXf0JK7IYnZn0m3k0
=BWow
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
[Revised/Updated]
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: Apache httpd vs Tomcat static content performance
> [Revised/Updated]
>
> After reading some of your feedback, I've decided to make some changes:
>
> - - Using TC 6.0.18 exclusively instead of 5.5
> - - Using tcnative 1.1.16 instead of 1.1.12
> - - Using httpd 2.2.11 instead of 2.2.10
> - - Running tests for a certain amount of time instead of a
> certain number of requests
JVM version?
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.