You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cocoon.apache.org by Luca Morandini <l....@tin.it> on 2001/10/17 18:56:13 UTC
map:read performance penalty
Folks,
I'd like to know whether the use of <map:read> sitemap component has any
significant impact on performance.
My traditional approach is to have all static content mapped directly to
the web-server. For instance all my images (JPG, GIF, ...) are in the
/graphics directory, thus avoiding the need to go through Tomcat/Cocoon
(/graphics is a top-level virual directory).
While this is faster, I'd like to know whether using <map:read> to serve
those resources (a more flexible approach indeed) has a serious impact on
performance.
One last thing, my images tend to be large (100KB or so).
Best regards,
---------------------------------------------
Luca Morandini
GIS Consultant
lmorandini@ieee.org
+39 0744 598 51 Office
+39 335 681 02 12 Mobile
http://utenti.tripod.it/lmorandini/index.html
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
Re: map:read performance penalty
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Luca Morandini wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to know whether the use of <map:read> sitemap component has any
> significant impact on performance.
>
> My traditional approach is to have all static content mapped directly to
> the web-server. For instance all my images (JPG, GIF, ...) are in the
> /graphics directory, thus avoiding the need to go through Tomcat/Cocoon
> (/graphics is a top-level virual directory).
>
> While this is faster, I'd like to know whether using <map:read> to serve
> those resources (a more flexible approach indeed) has a serious impact on
> performance.
>
> One last thing, my images tend to be large (100KB or so).
I have not noticed a big difference in performance. The Readers currently included
with Cocoon do not load the whole resource into memory before serializing, so it
won't have any greater impact on system scalability if your images were 100MB or so.
The buffer size is between 1k and 8k per concurrent reader--so it isn't as big a
concern otherwise.
The caveat to the above statement is caching. Cocoon does cache if it can, there is
a configurable threshold so that cacheable items taking up more than X bytes will not
be cached.
Seriously, I have run 200 threads attacking my machine, and readers are surprisingly
well behaved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>