I tried running the example with jetty 6.1. In less then 5 mins, I had everything working smoothly. The only issue I see is the JSP jar files are huge (~4MB)

The current example folder includes settings and jars for JMX, is that necessary?

We could probably ditch the JMX stuff as we don't currently use it... or does Jetty export some cool stuff via JMX that we might want to point people at for debugging?

If we go with JSP 2.1, we should just remember not to use any 2.1 specific features yet... most containers aren't quite there yet. The latest stable version of Tomcat 5.5.20 is only on Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0

BTW, there's a Jetty 6.1.1 out...

Ideally we could replace existing JSP with servlets or SolrRequestHandlers. I don't see anything that could not be handled using a SolrRequestHandler and default wt=xslt. For an embedded solr, it would be nice not to need the JSP dependencies. This would have the added bennefit of returning XML/JSON/ruby/etc for the admin interface.

Jetty 6.1.1? where is it? Its not on: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/Downloading+and+Installing#download

When you go to the download link:
http://dist.codehaus.org/jetty/

The disad to getting rid of JSPs is it would make it much harder for someone to easily improve the look or functionality of the admin pages.

I'm not suggesting we drop JSP now... just that we definitely should not be using 2.1 specific stuff and where possible xml+xslt with a RequestHandler (SOLR-58) in the future.

I just tried this with 6.1.1 and it works fine (with the jsp-2.0 or jsp-2.1)

What is the best way for me to post this patch? Most of the work is adding and deleting jar files. It has two xml config files etc/jetty.xml and etc/webdefault.xml

I think we want to wait with the newest Jetty. I'm on the jetty ML, and the beast is not yet fully ironed out., not yet stable enough. I'd let it simmer a little longer while Greg, Jan and other Jetty folks get the deamons out.

here is a zip with the example directory as we would (maybe) want it.

This uses jetty-6.1.3

Any opinions on if we should put in Jetty 6.1.3 now, or wait until after Solr 1.2 is released?

It has been working fine for me, but I have not been using it in production or under heavy load. Otis?

If 1.2 is more then a week away, I think we should include it soon and take it out if anything looks fishy...

OK, let's quickly go ahead then. There have been some JSP issues with our current Jetty version anyway.

I'd like to have all the core changes done in the next few days so we can get a release out by the end of this month (1 week away).

applied to rev541050

If anything goes wrong, we need to revert /example/ to rev 541049 and check NOTICE.txt and CHANGES.txt

I'm using 6.1.3 in a pre-production project.
I do see Hadoop guys hit a problem - see JETTY-345, which mentions 6.1.4rc1

Yeah, I saw that hadoop issue too, which is why I was planning on some quick
indexing & querying benchmarks.

Doing some quick connection handling tests with the python client:
from solr import *
c = SolrConnection(host='localhost:8080', persistent=False)
for i in xrange(10000):
c.search(q='id:1234'

Java 1.5 -server on WindowsXP

Jetty 5.1.??, persistent=20.9s, non-persistent=44s, sometimes "address already in use" exception
Jetty 6.1.3, persistent=20.1s, non-persistent=114s
Tomcat 6.0.13, persistent=20.2s, non-persistent=29s, sometimes "address already in use" exception

Could be a python client issue, (SO_REUSE_ADDR for python http-lib?), but it does seem like Jetty 6.1.3 is slower at handling new connections? Anyone have benchmarks from a different client?

Switching to the non-NIO connector in Jetty 6.1.3, I get
18.2s for persistent connections, 35s for non-persistent (again WinXP, Java5 -server)

The 10,000 single-client connection test on a dual Opteron, RHEL4 64 bit, Java5 64 bit -server
Jetty 6.1.3, NIO connector, persistent=414s, non-persistent=11.3s
Jetty 6.1.3, non-NIO connector, persistent=408s, non-persistent=10.2s

Situation reversed from WinXP! The persistent connections are horribly slow.

On that Opteron Linux box, almost identical numbers for Resin 3.0 pro, so it's not Jetty specific.

Hmmm, some bad interaction with persistent connections and POST (which solr.py uses)?
I switched the method to use GET, and it finished 10k connections in 6.3sec

Many browsers (incorrectly) send a CR+LF after the post body. The python httplib does not do this... I wonder if that's the issue (the server waiting for the possible CR+LF so it can throw it away?) The delay seems to be about 40ms

I think the issue with persistent connections on linux is due to Nagle's algorithm.
The python client sends the HTTP headers and body separately, thus triggering it.
The following little program below writes it all at once and gets very good performance:

---------mysock.py------
import socket

headers='''POST /solr/select HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8983
Accept-Encoding: identity
Content-Length: 11
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8

'''

body='q=id%3A1234'
msg = headers + body

s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect(("localhost", 8983))

for i in xrange(10000):
s.send(msg)
rsp = s.recv(8192) #pray we get the complete response in one go

will be included in solr1.2