DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43228>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 05:22 ------- Hi Remy, thanks for response. I have respects for your carefulness about the performance. IMO, AtomicInteger doesn't have synchronization problem and it's overhead is really low. I did performance benchmarks using Apache Bench between original and my patch . Here are the summary of results. Requests per second: original 5743.66 [#/sec] (mean) patch 5748.83 [#/sec] (mean) 99% Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) original 96 patch 80 Average CPU Usage original 96.35% patch 96.25% Is this reasonable? How do you think? BTW, the actual severity is that we cannot shutdown Tomcat quickly. We can avoid this problem to set the StandardContext#unloadDelay as 0. If this issue is WONTFIX, please note it on document instead. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
