BrainDump
  Home arrow BrainDump arrow Page 4 - Tomcat Benchmark Procedure
Dev Shed Forums  
Administration  
AJAX  
Apache  
BrainDump  
DHTML  
Flash  
Java  
JavaScript  
Multimedia  
MySQL  
Oracle  
Perl  
PHP  
Practices  
Python  
Reviews  
Security  
Smartphone Development  
Style-Sheets  
Web Services  
XML  
Zend  
Zope  
Mobile Linux  
App Generation ROI  
IBM® developerWorks  
Forums Sitemap  
E-Commerce Hosting  
Linux Web Hosting  
Managed Hosting  
Small Business Hosting  
VPS Hosting  
Weekly Newsletter

 
Developer Updates  
Free Website Content 
 RSS  Articles
 RSS  Forums
 RSS  All Feeds
Write For Us Get Paid  
Request Media Kit
Contact Us  
Site Map  
Privacy Policy  
Support  
 USERNAME
 
 PASSWORD
 
 
  >>> SIGN UP!  
  Lost Password? 
Google.com  
BRAINDUMP

Tomcat Benchmark Procedure
By: O'Reilly Media
  • Search For More Articles!
  • Disclaimer
  • Author Terms
  • Rating: starstarstarstarstar / 1
    2009-02-26


    Table of Contents:
  • Tomcat Benchmark Procedure
  • Benchmark results and summary
  • Benchmark results and summary continued
  • What else we could have benchmarked

  • Rate this Article: Poor Best 
      ADD THIS ARTICLE TO:
      error-file:tidyout.log Del.ici.ous error-file:tidyout.log Digg
      error-file:tidyout.log Blink error-file:tidyout.log Simpy
      error-file:tidyout.log Google error-file:tidyout.log Spurl
      error-file:tidyout.log Y! MyWeb error-file:tidyout.log Furl
    Email Me Similar Content When Posted
    Add Developer Shed Article Feed To Your Site
    Email Article To Friend
    Print Version Of Article
    PDF Version Of Article

     
     
    ADVERTISEMENT


    Tomcat Benchmark Procedure - What else we could have benchmarked
    ( Page 4 of 4 )

    In this benchmark, we tested the web server’s performance when serving HTTP. We did not benchmark HTTPS (encrypted HTTP). The performance characteristics are probably significantly different between HTTP and HTTPS because with HTTPS, both the server and the client must encrypt and decrypt the data in both directions over the network. The overhead caused by the encryption slows down the requests and responses to varying degrees on different implementations of the crypto code. We have not benchmarked the HTTPS performance of the above web server configurations. Without benchmarking it, many believe that Apache httpd ’s HTTPS performance is higher than that of Tomcat, and usually people base that belief on the idea that C code is faster than Java code. Our HTTP benchmark disproves that in three out of our four benchmark scenarios, and the fourth one is not significantly better on the C side. We do not know which web server configuration would be fastest serving HTTPS without benchmarking them. But, if either the C encryption code or the Java encryption code is the fastest—by a significant margin—Tomcat implements both because you can configure the APR connector to use OpenSSL for HTTPS encryption, which is the same C library that Apache httpd uses. 

    We could have benchmarked other metrics such as throughput; there are many more interesting things to learn by watching any particular metric that ab reports. For this benchmark, we define greater performance to mean a higher number of requests per second being handled successfully (a 2xx response code).

    We could have benchmarked other static file sizes, including files larger than 9k in size, but with files as large as 100k, all of the involved server configurations saturate the bandwidth of a megabit Ethernet network. This makes it impossible to measure how fast the server software itself could serve the files because the network was not fast enough. For our test, we did not have network bandwidth greater than 1 Mb Ethernet.

    We could have tested with mixed file sizes per HTTP request, but what mixture would we choose, and what use case would that particular mixture represent? The results of benchmarks such as these would only be interesting if your own web traffic had a similar enough mixture, which is unlikely. Instead, we focused on benchmarking two file sizes, one file size per benchmark test.

    We could have tested with a different number of client threads, but 150 threads is the default (as of this writing) on both Tomcat and Apache httpd , which means many administrators will use these settings—mainly due to lack of time to learn what the settings do and how to change them in a useful way. We ended up raising some of the limits on the Apache httpd  side to try to find a way to make httpd perform better when the benchmark client sends a maximum of 149 concurrent requests; it worked.

    There are many other things we could have benchmarked and many other ways we could have benchmarked. Even covering other common use cases is beyond the scope of this book. We’re trying to show only one example of a benchmark that yields some useful information about how the performance of Tomcat’s web server implementations compares with that of Apache httpd  in a specific limited environment and for specific tests.

    Please check back next week for the continuation of this article.



     
     
    >>> More BrainDump Articles          >>> More By O'Reilly Media
     

       

    BRAINDUMP ARTICLES

    - Migrating Oracle to PostgreSQL with Enterpri...
    - Demystifying SELinux on Kernel 2.6
    - Yahoo and Microsoft Create Ad Partnership
    - The Advantages of Obscure Open Source Browse...
    - Dell Announces CSI-style Digital Forensics S...
    - Milepost GCC Speeds Open-Source Development
    - Learn These 10 Programming Languages
    - Tomcat Capacity Planning
    - Internal and External Performance Tuning wit...
    - Tomcat Benchmark Procedure
    - Benchmarking Tomcat Performance
    - Tomcat Performance Tuning
    - Wubi: Windows-based Ubuntu Installer
    - Configuring and Optimizing Your I/O Scheduler
    - Linux I/O Schedulers





    © 2003-2009 by Developer Shed. All rights reserved. DS Cluster 4 Hosted by Hostway
    For more Enterprise Application Development news, visit eWeek