On 05/11/2012 04:51 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
I was following this tread and was hoping that someone will say:
"Do not use workstation grade software for server applications"
but no. XP (Win7 falls in the same category) has good network stack
but focused on client applications.
There is a good reas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/10/12 6:36 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
> Direct to apache http: Transfer rate: 21925.90
> [Kbytes/sec] received
>
> Through AJP: Transfer rate: 36732.95 [Kbytes/sec]
> received
>
> Direct to tomcat http: Transfer rate:
On 10/05/2012 23:36, Andy Wang wrote:
> So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s on the same VM I was able
> to reproduce it on once I copied the VM to an adequate vmware server.
> But I do see some neat numbers in case people care.
>
> I ran with ab -5 directly against apache, against a ur
email peuvent facilement
être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:36:02 -0500
> From: aw...@ptc.com
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
>
On 05/11/2012 12:36 AM, Andy Wang wrote:
So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s on the same VM I was able to
reproduce it on once I copied the VM to an adequate vmware server. But I do see
some neat numbers in case people care.
I was following this tread and was hoping that someone w
So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s on the same VM I was able
to reproduce it on once I copied the VM to an adequate vmware server.
But I do see some neat numbers in case people care.
I ran with ab -5 directly against apache, against a url mapped to ajp as
well as direct to the htt
I have solid numbers that I will e-mail in a follow up by itself so
it's not lossed in the shuffle.
Some answers to the comments inline.
Thanks,
Andy
Do you mean that Tomcat performance appears to be the same regardless
of version? That's both good and bad... I thought there were some
perfo
On 1:59 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/8/12 6:41 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
Initial benchmarks seem to show that the behavior between tomcats
is not an issue.
Do you mean that Tomcat performance appears to be the same regardless
of version?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/8/12 6:41 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
> Initial benchmarks seem to show that the behavior between tomcats
> is not an issue.
Do you mean that Tomcat performance appears to be the same regardless
of version? That's both good and bad... I thought t
On 08/05/2012 22:13, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
>> Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
>
>> Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
>> 2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - "s
He did that previously, and the result seemed to be that Tomcat alone
was comparable to httpd alone, and both were better than httpd/mod_jk
+ Tomcat; which is indeed physically to be expected : more tubing,
less throughput (excepting quantum tunelling effects of course).
The question is more
Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - "sol-11--text-x86.iso.8" saved
[450799616
> From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
> Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
> Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
> 2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - "sol-11--text-x86.iso.8" saved
> [450799616/450799616]
>
After playing with this a bit more (testing this time against tomcat 7.0.27)
the ajpPacketSize has zero effect on the speed.
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - “sol-11--text-x86.iso.8” saved
[450799616/450799616]
Downloading
Which connector are you using? If you have APR available, AJP should use
the APR connector by default. Do you know if you are using APR/native?
If not, consider trying it, and use sendFile="true". I'm not sure if it
will improve anything because the real problem might be the actual
buffering betwe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/7/12 6:38 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
> This is Apache 2.2.22 and mod_jk 1.2.32 with tomcat 5.0.30 (yeah,
> I know this is ancient. I'll try with something newer tomorrow).
Which connector are you using? If you have APR available, AJP should use
On 05/07/2012 06:50 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
On 05/07/2012 06:06 PM, André Warnier wrote:
Considering your setup, it should not be too hard to set up a
download of the same file file directly from Tomcat (through its HTTP
Connector), to compare that with your two previous ways. This way,
you co
On 05/07/2012 06:06 PM, André Warnier wrote:
Andy Wang wrote:
Hi all,
We've had a number of cases of people reporting to us that file
downloads are slow when passed through tomcat and I've not been able
to reproduce the problem on Linux but finally was provided a windows
XP VM that was able t
Andy Wang wrote:
Hi all,
We've had a number of cases of people reporting to us that file
downloads are slow when passed through tomcat and I've not been able to
reproduce the problem on Linux but finally was provided a windows XP VM
that was able to reproduce the problem.
This is Apache 2.2.
Hi all,
We've had a number of cases of people reporting to us that file
downloads are slow when passed through tomcat and I've not been able to
reproduce the problem on Linux but finally was provided a windows XP VM
that was able to reproduce the problem.
This is Apache 2.2.22 and mod_jk 1.2.
20 matches
Mail list logo
