You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Mike Cronin <mi...@fax.com> on 2007/10/17 01:23:19 UTC
Connector Compression
Hi there,
Is there any reason why you would not want to use compression on a
Connector?
Thanks in advance.
Mike
Fax.com
"The New Way To Fax!"
<http://www.fax.com/> www.fax.com
Confidential: This electronic message and all contents contain information
from Fax.com, Inc. which may be privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be for the
addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure, copy,
distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you
have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. Thank you.
Re: Connector Compression
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike,
Mike Cronin wrote:
> Is there any reason why you would not want to use compression on a
> Connector?
The mod_jk connector does not support any compression, so you obviously
don't mean that one.
The HTTP(s) connectors both support gzip compression. You may not want
to use compression if you have constrained CPU resources (either high
transaction rates or a weak CPU). Compression is pretty heavy on the CPU
so you have to decide is bandwidth is more precious than CPU time.
You may also have a client that does not support compression, but I
believe that the connector automatically detects this and will not
compress unless the client advertises an accept-encoding of gzip.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHFVs19CaO5/Lv0PARAibUAJ4zRx2W9ex9Iyh+SrrGuIN/drtH9QCgm5ct
1fjKXJCUDLbBx20voJ/2168=
=ZvSU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Connector Compression
Posted by Mike Cronin <mi...@fax.com>.
Great responses guys!
Thanks very much!
Mike
Fax.com
"The New Way To Fax!"
www.fax.com
Confidential: This electronic message and all contents contain information
from Fax.com, Inc. which may be privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be for the
addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure, copy,
distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you
have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Crowther [mailto:Peter.Crowther@melandra.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:11 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: Connector Compression
> From: Mike Cronin [mailto:mike.cronin@fax.com]
> Is there any reason why you would not want to use compression on a
> Connector?
You're trading CPU cycles (running the compression algorithm) for
bandwidth. I suspect you're also trading a certain amount of RAM (some
extra buffers), though I haven't checked or measured how much so I may
be talking out of my hat (as usual). Finally, you may be increasing the
time to the first byte arriving back at the client, as you're increasing
the amount of output the client has to generate before the first segment
of the response is sent. If your servers are CPU-bound, you may not
have the spare cycles; if you're tight on RAM, check whether the
compression increases the memory use. If you have timing requirements,
check that a system with compression enabled still meets them.
All that said, a "typical" business application almost certainly has
spare CPU, some spare RAM and no tight timing constraints on the first
byte being returned - it's generally bandwidth out of the server and
querying the database that are the limiting factors.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Connector Compression
Posted by Peter Crowther <Pe...@melandra.com>.
> From: Mike Cronin [mailto:mike.cronin@fax.com]
> Is there any reason why you would not want to use compression on a
> Connector?
You're trading CPU cycles (running the compression algorithm) for
bandwidth. I suspect you're also trading a certain amount of RAM (some
extra buffers), though I haven't checked or measured how much so I may
be talking out of my hat (as usual). Finally, you may be increasing the
time to the first byte arriving back at the client, as you're increasing
the amount of output the client has to generate before the first segment
of the response is sent. If your servers are CPU-bound, you may not
have the spare cycles; if you're tight on RAM, check whether the
compression increases the memory use. If you have timing requirements,
check that a system with compression enabled still meets them.
All that said, a "typical" business application almost certainly has
spare CPU, some spare RAM and no tight timing constraints on the first
byte being returned - it's generally bandwidth out of the server and
querying the database that are the limiting factors.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org