No of JVM's per Server - Windows WAS 6.0

[ice_cube210]

No of JVM\'s per Server - Windows WAS 6.0

HI List,

I spent some time searching for old posts on this subject and did not find anything conclusive, or I just did not hit the right search terms.

This is a 8.11 SP1 System, TR 8.97.1.1, Win 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition Web servers, WAS 6.0

My question is as follows

What is the optimum number of JVM's to configure on a Windows WAS 6.0 server. Usual rule of thumb would be no more than 1 JVM per CPU and 1-2 GM of RAM per JVM.

The JVM's on the box would be vertically clustered using ND. Now if I had a box that had 4 Dual core processors and 16 GB of RAM, I could go up to say 7 JVMS, leaving one processor and 2 Gigs for OS and other things. If I were more conservative on the RAM I guess I would need just 8 GB of RAM (1 gig per JVM).

I'm interested to know from others how many JVM's they configure per pox. Is there an optimum number you would not go above (5 or 6?). Or as long as I have the CPU and memory can I keep scaling up.? Have you seen performance degrade or the system becoming unstable if you scale vertical beyond a certain number?

From a point of failure perspective it would make sense to limit to 4 to 5 JVM's per box and scale horizontally rather than vertically. From a data center cost perspective less severs = less cost. But my most important factor here is performance.

On another note, on a Windows Web Server platform, what is the optimum no of users per JVM? I am running 60 per JVM right now. I know it depends on how heavy or light the users are , but I’d be interested to know how many users per JVM others are running and the performance levels


Any inputs appreciated, thanks in advance

 

[Radjammin2]

Re: No of JVM\'s per Server - Windows WAS 6.0

I am setting up Vertical clustering right now on 6.1. Planning on it managing 70 concur-ant users per JVM. I have my current JVMs at 768, and the tuning guide states it can go up to 1.5 but 1 is really the max recommended. Well with windows I don't know how much over half you can expect the applications to be able to use of available physical ram. I wouldn't count on having more then 8 of your 16 gigs for your JVMs. That max you out at 8 JVMs 4 Dual Cores? Are rackmounts nomrmally more expensive the more sockets you have? Strange to see 4 Duals. I was doing some price shopping and saw cheaper to get Dual QuadCores. If you really have 4 sockets, I think you could get 6 or 7. But if it was me I think I would stop at 5. Thats 350 concurrent users for that one web server. Are you staying at this location? or are you contracting? After monitoring you could go up to 6 or 7 if the load looks good.

I am setting up Dual Quads with 12 Gigs of ram with 4 JVMs. Room to grow if they do well. Again I am new to vertical clustering.

 

[ice_cube210]

Re: No of JVM\'s per Server - Windows WAS 6.0

Thanks for your inputs Radjammin2,

I wasn't really doing a price compare between a 4 Dual machine and a 2 Quad machine, just an example of a 8 CPU box. The newer servers are all 2 quad or 4 quad.

I would also like to stop at 5 JVM's per server and that is what I am inclining to , but I wanted to get some feedback if I was being too conservative before I make a final recommendation

Anyone else have any inputs.?

 

[brother_of_karamazov]

Re: No of JVM\'s per Server - Windows WAS 6.0

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your inputs Radjammin2,

I wasn't really doing a price compare between a 4 Dual machine and a 2 Quad machine, just an example of a 8 CPU box. The newer servers are all 2 quad or 4 quad.

I would also like to stop at 5 JVM's per server and that is what I am inclining to , but I wanted to get some feedback if I was being too conservative before I make a final recommendation

Anyone else have any inputs.?

[/ QUOTE ]

I now consider a core a CPU for computing JVM's. So the old "rule" becomes 1 JVM per core.

If you have 8 cores and are doing vertical and clustering you you will probably end up creating 3 JVM's per box. Keep in mind that you can do both types of clustering in an ND cell.