Bad performance of nginx with Tomcat vs. Apache with Tomcat
changsong at me.com
Fri Sep 4 01:51:59 MSD 2009
It didn't really matter what config I used.
I tried all combinations of
proxy_buffer* (various sizes)
and other proxy related parameters you can imagine.
The one I showed you has the best performance
The following showed the best performance across the board
worker_process 2; # since we have 2 core machine
max_connections 256; # ey-balancer (tomcat had 512 threads)
everything else default
On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:26 PM, István wrote:
> I think it would be beneficial to show us your nginx config :)
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Chang Song <changsong at me.com> wrote:
> Sometime ago, I posted an message about Nginx performance when
> paired with Tomcat.
> We recently did extensive in-house testing of various workload
> against Nginx with Tomcat vs Apache vs Tomcat.
> Apache wins hands down.
> Here's the basic setup
> 1. Nginx (2 proc/8192 connections) -> http/1.0 -> Tomcat (HTTP
> 2. Apache (512 prefork) -> AJP -> Tomcat (AJP)
> Both KeepAlive off (we don't use KeepAlive due to L4 switch)
> The physical server is 2 core Intel Xeon, which is typical web
> server config here.
> We have three grinder 3.2 load generators.
> We tested 4K and 20K Tomcat simple HTML file, 20K simple HTML with
> intentional 10% 200ms
> sleep in Tomcat serving (emulate slow DB query), etc.
> Every single case, Apache wins by at least 10-15%.
> Throughput and response time.
> Nginx uses a bit less CPU cycles (10-20%), but it is not able drive
> Tomcat to 100% CPU.
> Here's my take on this performance problem.
> 1. Lack of AJP support, which is an optimized HTTP protocol
> First of all, this is a serious bottleneck.
> * AJP has much less communication overhead than HTTP
> 2. Lack of HTTP KeepAlive support for proxy
> * Lack of AJP may be compensated with HTTP keepalive support since
> there are
> at least twice the number of TIME_WAIT sockets (connection
> establishment mean time
> is at least twice - three times slower than that of Apache)
> 3. Lack of connection pooling
> * Ey-balancer makes things a bit easier, response times are
> stable, but still the same
> average TPS and response time.
> 4. There seems to be a huge bug in connection management code
> Two mix of transactions: 20K HTML serving and 8K HTML with
> intentional 200ms delay in Tomcat logic
> With Apache, 20K HTML serving took 36 ms on average while 8K HTML
> took 258 ms
> With Nginx, 20K HTML serving took 600 ms on average while 8K HTML
> took 817 ms
> I really cannot explain these difference. Not even TCP connection
> overhead or lack of AJP.
> My questions is "should I abandon nginx at this point"?
> I know nginx is great proxy and static file server but I cannot
> prove my point with Tomcat over and over again.
> Thank you
> the sun shines for all
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nginx