Hi Peter,
That is why I mentioned it. We deliver our static content from other
servers,
and had originally considered hiding our TCs behind apache for
'security reasons'.
After seeing the speed difference, and the fact that their isn't
really a security
difference if you just push all
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:29, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat
better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking
about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to
that Apache is not?
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:50, Andrew Miehs wrote:
We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC
5.0 and Apache 2.0
If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal
with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk
OK, that's
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:52, Mark Thomas wrote:
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
than Apache (for now).
I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;)
I will certainly document how to fix my problem once it's
-Original Message-
From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:53 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse
documentation than Apache (for now
Hi,
I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that
apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with
apache/mod_jk would be marginal.
Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I
,
Kerem
-Original Message-
From: marc ratun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:47 PM
To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: mod_jk performance
Hi,
I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they
mentioned that
apache+mod_jk+tomcat
ail.com cc:
Subject: mod_jk performance
AFAIK mod_proxy performs worse than mod_jk.
Just my 2 cents.
Kerem
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
Marc
marc ratun wrote:
Hi,
I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they mentioned that
apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance decrease with
apache/mod_jk would be marginal.
Why would that be sad?
30%
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
... I am looking to the security side of the problem and
Apache+mod_jk does its job better than only Tomcat concerning security.
How so?
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com
Message-
From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
Marc
If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk
, you could try other alternatives
is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
than Apache (for now).
Best regards,
Kerem
-Original Message-
From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:13 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM
Apache is easier to configure, but at a 50% performance hit for pure
JSP pages
Andrew
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:18 PM, KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than
Tomcat, it is
more customizable and it is much user/admin friendly to
configure :-)
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling than Tomcat
better in what way? What actual *security* issue are we talking
about -- in other words, what exploit is Tomcat susceptible to
that Apache is not?
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:30 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Apache has better directory/file restricting and handling
than Tomcat
better in what
I use Apache/mod_jk/Tomcat for a long time on production servers with load
balancing/failover (and with high traffic sites) and I'm sure it's not 30%
slower than a pure Tomcat.
I use Apache to deliver static files, manage SSL and other apache specifics
modules.
Then, Tomcat only manage
We did some comparisons between running Tomcat 5.0 standalone, or TC
5.0 and Apache 2.0
If you are ONLY delivering JSPs, we found that we could only deal
with 50% of the requests when running combined Apache TC and mod_jk
Andrew
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Lionel Farbos wrote:
I use
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08 +0300
KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mod_jk 1.2.10 had some performance problems
but I did not thoroughly test why.
Is is proved ? Where do you find this ?
I tested mod_jk 1.2.14 (but not stressed it) and it seems to be a good
version...
What sort of
But, in a web site, there is never only JSPs : there is a lot of static files
(images, css, js, ...)
So, if you don't have a apache in the frontend to deliver theses static files,
there is an overload for the TC server...
So, your tests stressed only light JSPs or a real site ?
and what is your
We run F5 BigIPs as our loadbalancers, and have seperated images, etc
onto another server
IE: i.domain.com for images, and www.domain.com for dynamic content.
F5 provides a feature call iRules to do the splitting between hosts
for you, but I would
NOT use this on a high traffic site.
. Is there a
1.2.14 really or did you write 14 by mistake?
Cheers,
Kerem
-Original Message-
From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Cc: KEREM ERKAN
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:55:08
.
-
Cheers,
Kerem
-Original Message-
From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Cc: KEREM ERKAN
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14
So, I think your solution with F5 BigIPs-Tomcat is equivalent to the solution
with Apache/mod_jk-Tomcat
But the last is free
and I don't know the difference in performances between the 2 solutions.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:14:01 +0200
Andrew Miehs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We run F5 BigIPs as our
Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress
tested. The
tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test
results,
because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe
I can send
them when I test 1.2.14.
I'm interested in such tests (or a link
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300
KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, mod_jk 1.2.10 seems slower than 1.2.10 when stress
tested. The
tests completed in more time. I do not have the actual test
results,
because we have been using 1.2.10 for several months, maybe
I
-Original Message-
From: Lionel Farbos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:49 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Cc: KEREM ERKAN
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:27:29 +0300
KEREM ERKAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, mod_jk
KEREM ERKAN wrote:
Tomcat is harder to configure and -sadly- it has a far worse documentation
than Apache (for now).
I look forward to seeing your documentation patches in Bugzilla ;)
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Well since I don't understand German, I don't konw how he tested.
However in my stress testing which lots of static and JSPs, I found
Apache + mod_jk performance is a littlle higher than TOMCAT only. I
configured Apache with mod_cache.
So I think only handling JSPs, TC only could be better than
in
order for this to work till the end, just read the error when it fails and
you will know where to create the links.
-Original Message-
From: Pimentel, William (Col) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mod_jk performance
Hello
I've been unsuccesfully trying to compile mod_jk.so for Solaris 8, i get
all kind of weird erros such as:
sh: ./libtool: not found
*** Error code 1
when there's a ./libtool in the current directory (native)
The reason i'm trying to compile a new module is because the one i got
some
, the compilation step was the same as Linux. I didn't need to
install libtool, but I installed just about every other GNU dev tool.
John
-Original Message-
From: Pimentel, William (Col) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mod_jk
but the
system continues to be very...very slow.
I'd appreciate if some clues about this problem could be thrown
at me :-)
Thanx.
Serrano.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_jk performance optimization
: mod_jk performance optimization
Thanx for your reply, for it really helped.
I used jk from 3.3 and the previous error which appeard at
mod_jk.log is
gone. :-)
But...(there's always a but) another error appears when I
request several
servlet tasks simultaneously. In mod_jk.log
Hi.
I've got installed in my box Linux, Apache 1.3.19, JDK 1.3.1 and TC 3.3.1
working with ajp13. The following error appeard in my mod_jk.log after a bit
of continuous utilisation:
[jk_ajp13_worker.c (203)]: connection_tcp_get_message: Error -
jk_tcp_socket_recvfull failed
On Thu, 2 May 2002, M. Serrano wrote:
Hi.
I've got installed in my box Linux, Apache 1.3.19, JDK 1.3.1 and TC 3.3.1
working with ajp13. The following error appeard in my mod_jk.log after a bit
of continuous utilisation:
[jk_ajp13_worker.c (203)]: connection_tcp_get_message: Error -
36 matches
Mail list logo
