On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Jan Agermose wrote:
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:49:32 +0100 > From: Jan Agermose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Tomcat Users tomcat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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? > There are no universally correct answers to whether it's faster to run Tomcat+Apache or Tomcat standalone (assuming your app doesn't require Apache for other reasons). Therefore, the only way to get the correct answer for yourself is to try *your* application both ways and see which one works better.Fortunately, this can be done with just configuration settings -- no application changes should be required. Something else to keep in mind, though -- in most cases, your performance goal should be "fast enough" rather than "fastest possible", particularly if the "fast enough" scenario is easier to configure (as Tomcat standalone is, versus Tomcat+Apache). Spend the time you save not having to configure Tomcat+Apache on tuning your database queries -- that will generally have a *lot* more impact on user performance anyway. > Jan Agermose Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
