Hi Glen,
Apache supports a few features that tomcat does not,
particularly CGI, mod_perl, and all the other mod_*.
Apache can also run "safely" on port 80 on a unix host,
because it uses unix-specific functionality (change effective
user after starting). Because java doesn't have any way to
access unix-specific functionality like this, running tomcat
safely on port 80 is a bit trickier (though not impossible);
I use a firewall product to "redirect" port 80 to port 8080,
so that tomcat can run as an ordinary user.
If you are just serving files, though, then tomcat running
stand-alone *can* do the job.
The main benefit of tomcat stand-alone is simplicity: no
apache installation, no trickly apache->tomcat configuration,
and the nice Servlet-engine authorisation features can be
used for all files. If you are serving static pages with apache,
then of course servlet-engine authorisation will not be applied
to the static pages, as tomcat never sees the request.
The main drawback is performance. As far as I know,
Tomcat 3.2 supports only HTTP 1.0, ie a connection is
established for each file to be fetched. This is bad, but
if you are using https, I think that the encryption
"handshake" would need to be performed for each file
read, which is a significant performance hit. If tomcat is
just using mod_jk to talk to apache, and apache handles
HTTP 1.1, and the encryption issues, then I presume
that this is not an issue. Tomcat 4.0 is supposed to
handle HTTP 1.1, I believe. Not sure if it's implemented yet.
In the end, you need to ask: is performance a
bottleneck in your system? If not, I recommend
simplicity over a performance boost that is not
necessary..
Regards,
Simon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wohleb [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: No need for Apache?
>
> Unless your page has no graphics at all, then all is well. However if
> you do, then Tomcat would be serving them. Apache is better resource
> wise for static content such as graphics as far I know. If the number of
> graphics is low then, I don't see a problem. Apache supports persistent
> connections. A browser could get all the graphics for a page in one
> connection. Does Tomcat support this though? If not thats one conenction
> for every image.
>
> ~Rob
>
> Glen Campbell wrote:
> >
> > I would just like to get confirmation of this: my site will have low
> volume,
> > and 98% of the pages will have dynamic data (JSP). I should be able to
> > configure tomcat to listen on port 80, and get rid of Apache all
> together?
> > Or is there something I'm missing that would mean I have to use Apache
> and
> > Tomcat together?
> >
> > Glen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> _______________________________________
>
> Robert Wohleb
> Web Applications Development Manager
> Parafoil Software, Inc.
> _______________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
