You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Anand HS <an...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/10 01:00:29 UTC
Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Hi,
We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content ( media,
executables etc.. ). I was curious to know if any one has attempted it
before and if so, the settings that we need to make to tomcat configurations
to make it optimally serve static content.
Thanks,
Anand
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Caldarale, Charles R
<Ch...@unisys.com> wrote:
>> From: Anand HS [mailto:anandhs@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
>
>> We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
>> ( media, executables etc.. ).
>
> As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure static content. However, if you really want to use Tomcat, and you expect a heavy load, install the APR connector (especially important if you're using SSL). The other major configuration setting would be the Java heap size, but you'll have to experiment to determine what's optimal for your platform and load.
+1. Let Apache / Nginx / etc serve the static content and let Tomcat
focus on running your webapplication.
-- Sriram
==================
Belenix: www.belenix.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 6/9/2011 9:40 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Anand HS [mailto:anandhs@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
>
>> We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
>> ( media, executables etc.. ).
>
> As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more
> appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure static
> content.
+1
If you don't need Java for anything else, skip Tomcat altogether. There
are faster HTTP servers than both Apache Tomcat and Apache httpd.
> However, if you really want to use Tomcat, and you expect a heavy
> load, install the APR connector (especially important if you're using
> SSL).
If you don't need SSL, the NIO connector is a good bet, too. Both APR
and NIO support "sendFile" which allows higher-throughput static file
serving.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk3yc3kACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBiHACePaG1u57geBMBY+5nN46e7jcr
KlwAn08b0nwm0NgqVVWA2za3VSgON5tM
=Dm40
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Anand HS [mailto:anandhs@gmail.com]
> Subject: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
> We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
> ( media, executables etc.. ).
As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure static content. However, if you really want to use Tomcat, and you expect a heavy load, install the APR connector (especially important if you're using SSL). The other major configuration setting would be the Java heap size, but you'll have to experiment to determine what's optimal for your platform and load.
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Caldarale, Charles R
<Ch...@unisys.com> wrote:
>> From: Sriram Narayanan [mailto:sriramnrn@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
>
>> I myself agree that common practice is not the same as best practice,
>> though in my experience as a developer + sysadmin for the past few
>> years, it is indeed ideal to separate the serving of static content
>> from the service of application responses.
>
> Your opinion; mine's the opposite (with 40+ years of experience). Simpler is pretty much always better, if it can get the job done.
I guess it depends on what you've had to face, then.
There are all these static content serving strategies and technologies
being developed. There certainly is a reason for those.
>
> - Chuck
>
-- Sriram
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Sriram Narayanan [mailto:sriramnrn@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
> I myself agree that common practice is not the same as best practice,
> though in my experience as a developer + sysadmin for the past few
> years, it is indeed ideal to separate the serving of static content
> from the service of application responses.
Your opinion; mine's the opposite (with 40+ years of experience). Simpler is pretty much always better, if it can get the job done.
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com>.
I re-read my own responses. It looks like some context has not come
across in the non-interative nature of email.
I myself agree that common practice is not the same as best practice,
though in my experience as a developer + sysadmin for the past few
years, it is indeed ideal to separate the serving of static content
from the service of application responses.
-- Sriram
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Christopher Schultz
> <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Sriram,
>>
>> On 6/10/2011 1:49 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>>> Having one application serve static content, and having other
>>> applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
>>> processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
>>> accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
>>> tasks.
>>
>> Sure, but it's not always necessary. More moving parts when they aren't
>> necessary just results in tougher management and greater opportunity for
>> security mistakes.
>>
>
> For those that need it, this is what is done. Phrases such as "moving
> parts", etc give the impression that it's all going to be very
> complicated when it's not.
>
>>> In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
>>> proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
>>> balancing, and static content serving.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would say "the vast majority", but certainly many are.
>> There's no need to give the impression that some other web server in
>> front of Tomcat is a best practice: it's merely a common practice.
>>
>
> This is not giving an impression. There's a reason that this is common practice.
>
>> - -chris
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk3ydCIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDRRACfeZ7jW2zSaKy6yf+CZejb46JX
>> DSUAoJbNc3ZABf/19X5fjQveE4MjAbDh
>> =KY1q
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ==================
> Belenix: www.belenix.org
>
--
==================
Belenix: www.belenix.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bill,
This is fun.
On 6/13/2011 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>> Enlighten me: what is "the" reason that this is common practice?
>
> The most obvious reason for having HTTP server in front of an
> Application Server (Tomcat) is that there are many things that you
> can do at/in the HTTP server that you don't have available to you
> inside Tomcat.
Fair enough, but you shouldn't just throw httpd in the mix because those
features are available. You should only turn to Apache httpd when you
actually need one of those features.
I'm just suggesting that httpd/Tomcat as a "standard setup" is a thing
of the past. Sure, lots of people do it, but lots of those people
shouldn't be doing it.
> Things like:
> -Caching
> -Proxy
> -Load balancing
> -Static image serving (much more economical because the HTTP server
> is much lighter "weight" than a JVM/App server)
Really? What benchmarking have you done? Because I have benchmarked
httpd against Tomcat's NIO and APR connectors and I can tell you that
Tomcat scales just as well (better under certain conditions). Why
shouldn't it? It's the same code in the case of APR.
Here's my data and writeup:
http://people.apache.org/~schultz/ApacheCon%20NA%202010/
> -etc...
Wait, there's /more/? You must be right, then.
> The most common/safest configuration is the HTTP server being
> directly available to the internet and the Application Servers being hidden
> behind firewalls with only 1 port per IP address forwarded through the
> firewall.
The safest usable configuration has the application servers not directly
accessible from the Internet, or any other dangerous place. There's no
reason that a full-blown http server has to be in between them. Load
balancers, proxies, etc. are all other options that are equally viable.
> Also if you want to do clustering with failover or sequential updates
> it is better to have something in front of the actual application
> server that doesn't need to be changed much.
Agreed, but there's no reason for that thing to be httpd.
> HTTP servers are also much more efficient at processing HTTP
> connections and HTTPS traffic than Application Servers.
References, please? You do know that the APR connector runs the same
code as Apache httpd, right? Note that I didn't benchmark HTTPS speeds
for the above presentation, though my expectation is that JSSE will be
easily out-performed by both Apache httpd and Tomcat/APR, unless some
JSSE-friendly hardware SSL acceleration is available (which would
presumably be usable by OpenSSL, anyway, probably giving the slight edge
back to httpd/APR/OpenSSL).
> Besides, if you want an outage message, where would you serve that
> from if not from an HTTP server?
Load balancer, proxy, etc. You don't have to use Apache httpd + mod_jk
or whatever just to get a "down" page showing when you are having an outage.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk32i60ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PAuhwCgwW2eeB/PgcDUSTLWwQAcV5bm
usQAnj9NeFpA80ZrFXrtQGNCI1l5g47u
=/2yD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Bill Miller <mi...@gmail.com>.
>> Enlighten me: what is "the" reason that this is common practice?
The most obvious reason for having HTTP server in front of an Application Server (Tomcat) is that there are many things that you can do at/in the HTTP server that you don't have available to you inside Tomcat. Things like:
-Caching
-Proxy
-Load balancing
-Static image serving (much more economical because the HTTP server is much lighter "weight" than a JVM/App server)
-etc...
The most common/safest configuration is the HTTP server being directly available to the internet and the Application Servers being hidden behind firewalls with only 1 port per IP address forwarded through the firewall.
The most common reason for this is that an Application Server requires usually requires access to many more things than a simple HTTP server (Databases, Network Disk space, etc..) and those other things are MUCH more difficult to secure against external intrusions. Also if you want to do clustering with failover or sequential updates it is better to have something in front of the actual application server that doesn't need to be changed much. It will just simplify ongoing daily maintenance (it looks more complicated but in the long run it makes things a lot simpler). HTTP servers are also much more efficient at processing HTTP connections and HTTPS traffic than Application Servers.
Besides, if you want an outage message, where would you serve that from if not from an HTTP server?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: June 13, 2011 3:44 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sriram,
On 6/11/2011 4:00 AM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Christopher Schultz
> <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> Sriram,
>
> On 6/10/2011 1:49 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>>>> Having one application serve static content, and having other
>>>> applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
>>>> processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
>>>> accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
>>>> tasks.
>
>> Sure, but it's not always necessary. More moving parts when they aren't
>> necessary just results in tougher management and greater opportunity for
>> security mistakes.
>
> For those that need it, this is what is done. Phrases such as "moving
> parts", etc give the impression that it's all going to be very
> complicated when it's not.
My point is that most don't need it. It's evidently become so "standard"
that people do it because "it's what everybody does", instead of for
some specific reason.
For instance, we use Apache httpd in front of Apache Tomcat because we
need a single web server process to proxy to multiple back-end Apache
Tomcat instances. We also have multiple back-end servers and use httpd
as a load-balancer. If we had an F5 out front, we would probably remove
Apache httpd from the mix.
Configuring two web servers is (debatably) double the complexity. I
didn't say it was "very complicated"... I just said it was "more
complicated".
>>>> In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
>>>> proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
>>>> balancing, and static content serving.
>
>> I'm not sure I would say "the vast majority", but certainly many are.
>> There's no need to give the impression that some other web server in
>> front of Tomcat is a best practice: it's merely a common practice.
>
> This is not giving an impression. There's a reason that this is common practice.
Enlighten me: what is "the" reason that this is common practice?
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk32aIoACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCRcwCcD3dtgWWo5LjQoYCdYGxD6eut
qjAAn2DH2dXpwCGXuiM84qc4YbofgWHn
=w0j7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sriram,
On 6/11/2011 4:00 AM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Christopher Schultz
> <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> Sriram,
>
> On 6/10/2011 1:49 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>>>> Having one application serve static content, and having other
>>>> applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
>>>> processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
>>>> accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
>>>> tasks.
>
>> Sure, but it's not always necessary. More moving parts when they aren't
>> necessary just results in tougher management and greater opportunity for
>> security mistakes.
>
> For those that need it, this is what is done. Phrases such as "moving
> parts", etc give the impression that it's all going to be very
> complicated when it's not.
My point is that most don't need it. It's evidently become so "standard"
that people do it because "it's what everybody does", instead of for
some specific reason.
For instance, we use Apache httpd in front of Apache Tomcat because we
need a single web server process to proxy to multiple back-end Apache
Tomcat instances. We also have multiple back-end servers and use httpd
as a load-balancer. If we had an F5 out front, we would probably remove
Apache httpd from the mix.
Configuring two web servers is (debatably) double the complexity. I
didn't say it was "very complicated"... I just said it was "more
complicated".
>>>> In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
>>>> proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
>>>> balancing, and static content serving.
>
>> I'm not sure I would say "the vast majority", but certainly many are.
>> There's no need to give the impression that some other web server in
>> front of Tomcat is a best practice: it's merely a common practice.
>
> This is not giving an impression. There's a reason that this is common practice.
Enlighten me: what is "the" reason that this is common practice?
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk32aIoACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCRcwCcD3dtgWWo5LjQoYCdYGxD6eut
qjAAn2DH2dXpwCGXuiM84qc4YbofgWHn
=w0j7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Christopher Schultz
<ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sriram,
>
> On 6/10/2011 1:49 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>> Having one application serve static content, and having other
>> applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
>> processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
>> accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
>> tasks.
>
> Sure, but it's not always necessary. More moving parts when they aren't
> necessary just results in tougher management and greater opportunity for
> security mistakes.
>
For those that need it, this is what is done. Phrases such as "moving
parts", etc give the impression that it's all going to be very
complicated when it's not.
>> In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
>> proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
>> balancing, and static content serving.
>
> I'm not sure I would say "the vast majority", but certainly many are.
> There's no need to give the impression that some other web server in
> front of Tomcat is a best practice: it's merely a common practice.
>
This is not giving an impression. There's a reason that this is common practice.
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk3ydCIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDRRACfeZ7jW2zSaKy6yf+CZejb46JX
> DSUAoJbNc3ZABf/19X5fjQveE4MjAbDh
> =KY1q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
--
==================
Belenix: www.belenix.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sriram,
On 6/10/2011 1:49 PM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> Having one application serve static content, and having other
> applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
> processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
> accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
> tasks.
Sure, but it's not always necessary. More moving parts when they aren't
necessary just results in tougher management and greater opportunity for
security mistakes.
> In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
> proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
> balancing, and static content serving.
I'm not sure I would say "the vast majority", but certainly many are.
There's no need to give the impression that some other web server in
front of Tomcat is a best practice: it's merely a common practice.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk3ydCIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDRRACfeZ7jW2zSaKy6yf+CZejb46JX
DSUAoJbNc3ZABf/19X5fjQveE4MjAbDh
=KY1q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Sriram Narayanan <sr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Caldarale, Charles R
<Ch...@unisys.com> wrote:
>> From: Caldarale, Charles R
>> Subject: RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
>
>> > We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
>> > ( media, executables etc.. ).
>
>> As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more
>> appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure
>> static content.
>
> I have to qualify my statement: if the *only* thing you're using Tomcat for is delivering static content, then httpd would be better. If you have other reasons to use Tomcat (e.g., running servlets or JSPs), then by all means use it as your static content server as well. You will generally see better performance overall by not having two servers in the mix forced to communicate with each other.
>
Having one application serve static content, and having other
applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some
processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely
accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various
tasks. Given that we have binary communication between httpd and
tomcat, and that this allows for Tomcat to be installed and used in
all manner of ways (dedicated instances for specific web apps, or load
balanced instances, for e.g.), I don't think "forced" is the right
term at all.
In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in
proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load
balancing, and static content serving.
-- Sriram
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by Anand HS <an...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Charles and Sriram for your inputs.
Since my requirement is to just serve static content, I will consider apache
httpd for it.
Thanks.!
Anand
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Caldarale, Charles R <
Chuck.Caldarale@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Caldarale, Charles R
> > Subject: RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
>
> > > We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
> > > ( media, executables etc.. ).
>
> > As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more
> > appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure
> > static content.
>
> I have to qualify my statement: if the *only* thing you're using Tomcat for
> is delivering static content, then httpd would be better. If you have other
> reasons to use Tomcat (e.g., running servlets or JSPs), then by all means
> use it as your static content server as well. You will generally see better
> performance overall by not having two servers in the mix forced to
> communicate with each other.
>
> - Chuck
>
>
> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its
> attachments from all computers.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Caldarale, Charles R
> Subject: RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server
> > We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content
> > ( media, executables etc.. ).
> As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more
> appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure
> static content.
I have to qualify my statement: if the *only* thing you're using Tomcat for is delivering static content, then httpd would be better. If you have other reasons to use Tomcat (e.g., running servlets or JSPs), then by all means use it as your static content server as well. You will generally see better performance overall by not having two servers in the mix forced to communicate with each other.
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org