You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by e <ju...@gmail.com> on 2005/12/02 14:10:40 UTC
Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Hi,
I'm happy to see Apache 2.2 has been released. I'm curious if anyone has
any insights into the performance of mod_proxy_ajp vs mod_jk? Is it more
efficient, or just easier to configure? Are there any sample
configurations available to look at?
Thanks,
E
Re: Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Chris Lear wrote:
>* Jess Holle wrote (02/12/05 13:53):
>
>
>>I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested
>>just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
>>
>>
>But where is the information on this?
>
>
It should be in Apache 2.2's doc set, but it would not surprise me at
all if this were a bit sparse as of yet.
>I joined this list a few days ago after Googling like crazy for
>information on the most sensible and supported way to connect apache to
>tomcat (or whether to drop it and just use the http connector). In the
>end, I'm using mod_jk, because I couldn't find *anything* helpful on the
>web about configuring or using mod_proxy_ajp, apart from some
>theoretical examples that tended to be incompatibile with one another.
>The only thing people seem to agree on is that mod_jk2 is no use, though
>that had the option of unix sockets, which I would have thought would be
>a good thing.
>
>
mod_proxy_ajp is only in Apache 2.2 (and the 2.1 development stream
leading to 2.2) and 2.2 was just released, so obviously it is going to
fairly little information about it as of yet.
mod_jk2 never became stable. mod_jk is the thing for Apache 2.0, is
well documented, and works fine.
>I might revert to using the http connector. The reasons for not doing
>this are: 1) I want apache to do SSL, 2) I don't want to run tomcat as
>root, and using local port forwarding is a hassle, and 3) there's a bit
>more flexibility in the apache route.
>
>
The other major reason for using mod_jk or mod_proxy_ajp is load
balancing from Apache over several Tomcats.
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
"Chris Lear" <ch...@laculine.com> wrote in message
news:43905FF2.7020603@laculine.com...
>* Jess Holle wrote (02/12/05 13:53):
>> I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested
>> just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
>
> But where is the information on this?
>
You can search the dev@tomcat archives (where I vaguely remember this), but
I haven't seen any recent benchmark data on either the dev@tomcat or the
dev@httpd lists.
> I joined this list a few days ago after Googling like crazy for
> information on the most sensible and supported way to connect apache to
> tomcat (or whether to drop it and just use the http connector). In the
> end, I'm using mod_jk, because I couldn't find *anything* helpful on the
> web about configuring or using mod_proxy_ajp, apart from some
> theoretical examples that tended to be incompatibile with one another.
It's integrated into mod_proxy, so you use the same directives that you
would use for mod_proxy. e.g.
# Forward all to myapp
ProxyPass /myapp ajp://localhost:8009/myapp
# Alt Forward all to myapp
<Location /myapp>
ProxyPass ajp://localhost:8009/myapp
</Location>
# Forward all JSP files
RewriteRule (.*)\.jsp$ ajp://localhost:8009/$1.jsp [P]
> The only thing people seem to agree on is that mod_jk2 is no use, though
> that had the option of unix sockets, which I would have thought would be
> a good thing.
>
> I might revert to using the http connector. The reasons for not doing
> this are: 1) I want apache to do SSL, 2) I don't want to run tomcat as
> root, and using local port forwarding is a hassle, and 3) there's a bit
> more flexibility in the apache route.
>
> Chris
>
>
>>
>> Tim Funk wrote:
>>
>>> Performance (IIRC while reading on the mailing lists) is about the
>>> same. mod_proxy_ajp should be easier to configure and install since it
>>> comes bundled with apache and it should be much easier to install than
>>> jk.
>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Posted by Chris Lear <ch...@laculine.com>.
* Jess Holle wrote (02/12/05 13:53):
> I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested
> just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
But where is the information on this?
I joined this list a few days ago after Googling like crazy for
information on the most sensible and supported way to connect apache to
tomcat (or whether to drop it and just use the http connector). In the
end, I'm using mod_jk, because I couldn't find *anything* helpful on the
web about configuring or using mod_proxy_ajp, apart from some
theoretical examples that tended to be incompatibile with one another.
The only thing people seem to agree on is that mod_jk2 is no use, though
that had the option of unix sockets, which I would have thought would be
a good thing.
I might revert to using the http connector. The reasons for not doing
this are: 1) I want apache to do SSL, 2) I don't want to run tomcat as
root, and using local port forwarding is a hassle, and 3) there's a bit
more flexibility in the apache route.
Chris
>
> Tim Funk wrote:
>
>> Performance (IIRC while reading on the mailing lists) is about the
>> same. mod_proxy_ajp should be easier to configure and install since it
>> comes bundled with apache and it should be much easier to install than
>> jk.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested
just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
Tim Funk wrote:
> Performance (IIRC while reading on the mailing lists) is about the
> same. mod_proxy_ajp should be easier to configure and install since it
> comes bundled with apache and it should be much easier to install than
> jk.
>
> e wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm happy to see Apache 2.2 has been released. I'm curious if anyone
>> has
>> any insights into the performance of mod_proxy_ajp vs mod_jk? Is it
>> more
>> efficient, or just easier to configure? Are there any sample
>> configurations available to look at?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_ajp
Posted by Tim Funk <fu...@joedog.org>.
Performance (IIRC while reading on the mailing lists) is about the same.
mod_proxy_ajp should be easier to configure and install since it comes
bundled with apache and it should be much easier to install than jk.
e wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm happy to see Apache 2.2 has been released. I'm curious if anyone has
> any insights into the performance of mod_proxy_ajp vs mod_jk? Is it more
> efficient, or just easier to configure? Are there any sample
> configurations available to look at?
>
> Thanks,
> E
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org