You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Hassan Schroeder <ha...@gmail.com> on 2010/03/25 01:26:57 UTC
httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
<http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
it here. :-)
(via @springsource on Twitter)
--
Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder@gmail.com
twitter: @hassan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/2010 01:39, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
>
> That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers.
What did you think was odd?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Marian Simpetru <ma...@esolutions.ro>.
Hi ,
We have a online shop developed as a suite of JSR168 portlets. On some
portlets we list products and images (so there are about 25 images per
page + other images).
One image has around 250k.
Performance was greatly improved after we put apache httpd in front
(images served by apache & gzipped response for js, html, css).
We did not note numbers, but the improvement could be seen with naked
eye.
Now, reading the article, I think we should have tried APR also :)
But hei, there are other reasons too for using httpd, such as handful
apache modules (e.g. mod rewrite or gzip compression)
Note:
tomcat 6.0.18, NOT configured with APR
running on debian linux sun jdk6
Regards,
Marian Simpetru
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 02:39 +0100, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
>
> That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers.
>
> Rémy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Rémy Maucherat <re...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
That's the second benchmark that I see today that has odd numbers.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/2010 17:47, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 3/24/2010 8:50 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
>>> Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
>>>
>>> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>>>
>>> because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
>>> it here. :-)
>>>
>>> (via @springsource on Twitter)
>
>> Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
>
> Hey, I could have been making all that stuff up. BTW: the link on that
> page to "performance testing" doesn't seem clickable to me (ff 3.6.2).
>
>> I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice
>> to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the
>> data.
>
> I'd be happy to give you my raw data plus the graphs I already did. OOo
> format okay?
Perfect. Tx.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 3/24/2010 8:50 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
>> Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
>>
>> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>>
>> because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
>> it here. :-)
>>
>> (via @springsource on Twitter)
>
> Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
Hey, I could have been making all that stuff up. BTW: the link on that
page to "performance testing" doesn't seem clickable to me (ff 3.6.2).
> I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice
> to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the
> data.
I'd be happy to give you my raw data plus the graphs I already did. OOo
format okay?
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuroZQACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBulACgwHCDOu1ZeXP1Sufks7zQMWU3
dR8AnjKKnNR/FmYzyP8l3FKsazqAHiyo
=WbBv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/2010 07:01, Jason Brittain wrote:
> Very entertaining reading! Thanks Chris and Mark for re-benchmarking,
> explaining, and giving your opinions on the results. I'm not entirely sure
> how I missed Chris' benchmark results email, almost exactly one year ago
> now. Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing
> any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how
> to interpret the numbers. It would be great to get more information about
> how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server
> hardware was used.
Chris's original thread had most, if not all, of that info. I did have a
reference to that in the blog post but it looks like it got garbled
somewhere in the publishing process. I'll get that fixed. In the
meantime, MarkMail should be able to find it.
> I tried to write my benchmark such that it is fully documented and
> repeatable all the way down to the configuration used on both the client and
> the server, etc. I also wanted to be completely clear and up front about
> the specific scenarios I was benchmarking -- there are many more that I
> wasn't -- so I wrote the explanations into the text as well. The results
> are, of course, only about the kinds of requests we're benchmarking, and
> also about the configuration(s) used. I did try to think up and benchmark
> the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can
> say their webapp isn't like that. :)
Indeed. Benchmarks are useful guides to general trends but nothing is
going beat benchmarking your own web application with realistic usage
patterns.
> Plus, I tried to write my benchmark
> to both inspire others to conduct and publish more benchmarks, and also to
> show a detailed example of one that others could modify and re-use. I was
> hoping to see more published benchmarks by now, but each one I find is
> really entertaining.
I think the time it takes to do a really good benchmark is a significant
barrier. I wanted to do a new benchmark for the blog post but just
didn't have the time. It is on the todo list but things like Tomcat 7
and bug fixes keep getting in the way :)
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jason,
On 3/25/2010 3:01 AM, Jason Brittain wrote:
> Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing
> any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how
> to interpret the numbers.
I'd be happy to give you a quick explanation, while a complete writeup
is still... on the back burner. Those Tomcat people keep putting out new
releases and it takes a long time to run all the tests. I have yet to
run keepalive versus non-keepalive (well, just the keepalive test)
against all the connectors (plus httpd) AND Andre' asked about SSL, so I
suppose I'll have to try that, too.
Here's the deal:
All numbers in the cells are effective transfer rate (in KiB/sec) over
an 8-minute testing window: basically, I made as many requests as I
could for 8 minutes straight to a single static file (file size listed
in the left-hand column) and let ApacheBench tell me what the transfer
rate was (which IIRC does not include HTTP headers, etc.: just the file
content).
It looks like Mark cherry-picked the results with this profile:
keepalive=off, concurrency=40, Client VM
I also did concurrencies (parallel client threads) of 1, 80, 160, and
200 (I think... I hadn't yet merged that data into my spreadsheet).
It's all very repeatable using a set of scripts I wrote for this purpose.
> It would be great to get more information about
> how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server
> hardware was used.
- From my forthcoming (!) write-up:
"
These tests were performed on a modest machine with a single-core 32-bit
microprocessor (see Appendix A for a complete description of the test
hardware) and 1GiB RAM. Tomcat 6.0.20, tcnative 1.1.18, and apr 1.3.8
was tested on Sun's Java Virtual Machine 1.6.0_15_b03 (client and server
JVMs were tested separately: see the individual tests for details).
Apache httpd 2.2.12 was used for comparison. Both httpd and Tomcat were
used in their default configurations where applicable (that is, no
performance-oriented tuning was performed on either configuration).
ApacheBench 2.3 was used to test transfer rates from each server
configuration. The tests were run from the local machine to avoid
network interference.
"
Unless otherwise specified, all software was kept in it's default
configuration. That is, no tuning was performed on any of the components
for these tests.
> I did try to think up and benchmark
> the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can
> say their webapp isn't like that.
I stuck to static files because nobody cares what the performance of
running a JSP relative to httpd is... since HTTP doesn't serve them :)
> I'm happy to see that Chris' independent benchmark numbers help to show that
> it is indeed a myth that Tomcat needs HTTPD in front of it in order to get
> good performance serving static files. And, it's great to see benchmark
> results for file sizes that I wasn't able to benchmark.
I also intend to show what the overhead is of adding httpd "needlessly"
in front of Tomcat. I suspect that it won't be that bad :)
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkurqD0ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBTTQCeNdqh/MEeFA0pdrlXtnWNC9qI
ZY4AoLNyKI2RyhL64tcEoqDjzlVitqqY
=iBpD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Jason Brittain <ja...@gmail.com>.
Very entertaining reading! Thanks Chris and Mark for re-benchmarking,
explaining, and giving your opinions on the results. I'm not entirely sure
how I missed Chris' benchmark results email, almost exactly one year ago
now. Chris: there are no units on your results numbers, and I'm not seeing
any procedure you used, nor any configurations you used, so I'm not sure how
to interpret the numbers. It would be great to get more information about
how the benchmark was conducted, which HTTP client was used, and what server
hardware was used.
I tried to write my benchmark such that it is fully documented and
repeatable all the way down to the configuration used on both the client and
the server, etc. I also wanted to be completely clear and up front about
the specific scenarios I was benchmarking -- there are many more that I
wasn't -- so I wrote the explanations into the text as well. The results
are, of course, only about the kinds of requests we're benchmarking, and
also about the configuration(s) used. I did try to think up and benchmark
the most likely use cases for serving typical webapp content, but anyone can
say their webapp isn't like that. :) Plus, I tried to write my benchmark
to both inspire others to conduct and publish more benchmarks, and also to
show a detailed example of one that others could modify and re-use. I was
hoping to see more published benchmarks by now, but each one I find is
really entertaining.
I'm happy to see that Chris' independent benchmark numbers help to show that
it is indeed a myth that Tomcat needs HTTPD in front of it in order to get
good performance serving static files. And, it's great to see benchmark
results for file sizes that I wasn't able to benchmark.
Mark: I like your text about some of the other reasons people want to use
HTTPD -- it is spot on, and in fact there are so many modules out there for
it, there are countless logical reasons to use it. Thanks for the
additional analysis. It helps.
--
Jason
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> > Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
> >
> > <
> http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform
> >
> >
> > because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
> > it here. :-)
> >
> > (via @springsource on Twitter)
>
> Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just
> opinion.
>
> I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice
> to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the
> data.
>
> Mark
>
>
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 25/03/2010 00:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
>
> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>
> because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
> it here. :-)
>
> (via @springsource on Twitter)
Chris deserves a lot of the credit. Without his figures, it is just opinion.
I'll have to see if I can get the graph to display as well. It is nice
to have the hard figures but the graph gives you a quicker handle on the
data.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Auser99 <gu...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the link.
au
http://www.xprad.org/
Hassan Schroeder-2 wrote:
>
> Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
>
> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>
> because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
> it here. :-)
>
> (via @springsource on Twitter)
>
> --
> Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder@gmail.com
> twitter: @hassan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/httpd-vs.-Tomcat-performance-tp28023360p28056376.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by Konstantin Kolinko <kn...@gmail.com>.
2010/3/27 André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>:
>> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>>
> Might this not also be worth preserving in the Tomcat FAQ/wiki ?
>
There is
http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/FAQ/Performance_and_Monitoring
and it can be updated.
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: httpd vs. Tomcat performance
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> Just to get this into the archives for the next time it comes up
>
> <http://tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/24/myth-or-truth-one-should-always-use-apache-httpd-front-apache-tomcat-improve-perform>
>
> because I don't know if the author (a certain "mthomas") will mention
> it here. :-)
>
Might this not also be worth preserving in the Tomcat FAQ/wiki ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org