Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache? -- WEB400

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Den 31/12/10 21.38, Aaron Bartell skrev:

I am not sure what the max clients is, but I do know that when I have done
testing with JMeter I hit the TCP layer bottleneck before I hit the OS job
limitation. Actually, that was a test for stateless transactions. I
basically spun up a couple hundred Apache jobs and hit it hard with JMeter.
That's when things started falling apart and I had to call IBM. They of
course told me it was my software, so I had to put together a bare bones CGI
app and prove it wasn't. Then they got one of the higher level devs on and
they pretty much determined it was at the TCP layer. You can adjust the TCP
layer settings, but they recommended against it.

Am I right in understanding the above to be that there is a limitation in the TCP/IP implementation for the i? Is this still a case for V7R1? (in other words could you redo the test :) )

When I read the above the first time, I thought you were overflowing the buffer in the networking layer for incoming, but not yet accepted socket connections (which I believe is around 20), but now I am not so sure any more. Could you elaborate on what you were seeing?

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.