On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Jan Agermose wrote: > Well, yes, of cause, if you need apache, you need apache... I was of > couse only thinking about the case where you could manage without > apache? Would I gain anything when looking only at performance? One > related (?) question. One use of appache is to do loadbalancing but > requesting from different tomcat instances. Is there a way to do > this using tomcat only?
In general, it makes sense that Apache will perform better with static content, but Tomcat standalone will perform better with dynamic content. But it's hard to say much more specific than that. Every setup and application is so different. You can try your application with Tomcat standalone, and see if the performance is acceptable. Or you can try it with both, and see which is better. Tomcat standalone is a perfectly acceptable choice, if it works for you. Don't know about the Tomcat-only load-balancing question. My first inclination is no, because you'd need something in front of Tomcat doing the load-balancing. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Tomcat Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:55 PM > Subject: RE: apache/tomcat performance > > > > > > There are many, many, many reasons why you would want to use Apache in > > addition to Tomcat. Serving static content is just one of them. > > > > Some other reasons include: > > > > - you don't want to run Tomcat as root (it has to run as root to run on > port > > 80) > > - you need CGI > > - you need SSI > > - you need any one of Apache's other modules, like mod_rewrite or anything > > else > > - you have a customized Apache for whatever reason > > - you have a bunch of virtual hosts, with only some of them using Tomcat > > - lots more > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jan Agermose [mailto:jan@;agermose.dk] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:50 AM > > > To: 'Tomcat Users tomcat > > > Subject: apache/tomcat performance > > > > > > > > > I guess the reason to have apache in front of tomcat is that > > > apache serves html and images faster than tomcat? But what is > > > the perfomance cost of having apache commmunicate with tomcat > > > using JK? Has anyone ever testet this? I would think that > > > most browsers cache html and images and therefor the > > > perfomance gain from apache should matter less than the > > > potential performance lose from jsp/servlet pages that are > > > never cached? > > > > > > Jan Agermose > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > Milt Epstein Research Programmer Integration and Software Engineering (ISE) Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
