Eric B. wrote: > "Gregor Schneider" <rc4...@googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:a2d59f0d0902021308v6f80a37btca0380933436c...@mail.gmail.com... >> hm, since I'd like to avoid to browse through the whole webinar: >> >> what are the benefits / advantages / disadvantages? >> >> actually we've been quite happy with mod_jk, that's why I'm wondering > > That's why I'm wondering the same thing as well. They don't say much except > that AJP is less configurable and more difficult to debug since it is a > binary protocol, it doesn't perform any better than the HTTP/1.1 protocol > and that they do not recommend its use. Other than that, they don't say > much about it, so I find myself wondering as well. > > I've been using mod_jk for several years now, but am looking at a brand new > deployment (new servers, new app, new cluster, etc), so I was wondering > myself if it was worth looking at different ways to connect to apache. The > only other thing I found was mod_proxy, but from what I gathered quickly, is > that it is not as reliable and slower. > > Anyone have any ideas?
The (very) short version is: mod_proxy_ajp is not as stable as mod_jk. mod_jk and mod_proxy_http are prety much neck and neck. mod_proxy_http has a very slight edge on average but on a case by case basis either may be the better choice. Of course, as mod_proxy_ajp improves the balance will change. For the record I used mod_proxy_ajp quite happily with httpd and a two node Tomcat cluster on a production system without any issues for over a year in a previous job. In the end, YMMV - use what works for you. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
