You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com> on 2009/11/24 10:47:32 UTC
Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Hi,
Im pretty new to this but have 2 friends that help me out. Though one of my
friends tells me to use Apache2 infront of Tomcat and the other one tells me
it's unnecessary.
I'll try to explain my situation:
I've started a virtual Ubuntu 8.04 Longterm server and my goal is to have
atleast one serious site (made in Grails) and beeing a search engine (think
youtube). So it's gonna be pretty much dynamic content and less static. But
I will also start some sites just for fun that probobly won't have that much
visitors but beeing abit more static content.
Im not saying my primary site will get much visitors but I want to build the
environment as if it has.
Ps. I will probobly put a Varnish at the front sooner or later (for the
experience)
So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste of
time or worth while?
I'd love to have as many inputs as possible!
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Tomcat-6-and-Apache2-VS-Tomcat-6-alone-tp26493078p26493078.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
Since my ears (eyes?) are burning...
On 11/24/2009 6:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>:
>> The most compelling argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>> indeed the static content part.
>
> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
Yes, I'm getting ready to get back into that benchmarking... that field
has laid fallow for quite a while and I just freed-up a dev server to do
some testing, so I'm basically formalizing everything, properly
documenting it so that my tests can easily be repeated, and upgrading to
Tomcat 6.0.20 for all testing, etc.
Anyhow, the upshot from all the testing I've done is that if you are
using small files (< 32KiB), all connectors (in Tomcat) in all
configurations perform about the same: this includes using Tomcat-native
(aka APR, which is the httpd code mentioned elsewhere).
If the argument is that httpd is faster by definition, then using the
APR connector with Tomcat ought to be just as fast, so you get no
discernible performance boost by using httpd out front. My data has
httpd versus Tomcat+APR+sendFile in a dead heat for nearly all file
sizes, with Tomcat+APR winning at certain points, losing at others. I
suspect this is just noisy data that can be attributed to a cron job or
two running during the tests.
If you want my advice, use the APR Connector and make sure you specify
sendFile="true" and you'll be able to prove your httpd fanboy wrong. :)
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksYHVgACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDnWwCgrGi12feuuHICV0QB8TGDg7aG
ppsAniVmIsuzEHDPOD6LlqJlVi/vHkRE
=OANy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: [OT] Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Pid [mailto:pid@pidster.com]
> Subject: [OT] Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
>
> > Additionally, if you added a new host, you would need to edit the
> server.xml to add a reference to it. It would be much nicer if it
> worked like context config files. The file system currently being used
> for tomcat seems perfectly set up for such a thing.
>
> I don't believe that the config parser can cope with making dynamic
> changes to the server's structure. It is possible to make fairly
> significant changes via JMX.
Additional <Host> elements do *not* need to be specified in server.xml - you can add and remove them on the fly with Tomcat's host-manager (not manager) webapp.
- 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
[OT] Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 24/11/2009 12:34, Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Robert Koberg wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Pid wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/11/2009 11:57, Robert Koberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer<ke...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>>>>>> indeed the static content part.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
>>>>> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
>>>>> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
>>>>> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
>>>>>
>>>>>> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
>>>>>> pure tomcat?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
>>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
>>>>> (assuming version 6.0.x).
>>>>
>>>> It would be easier if you could keep your host configuration separate from the server.xml, similar to contexts. For example, the file system would look like:
>>>>
>>>> -tomcat
>>>> |-conf
>>>> |-server.xml
>>>> |-Catalina
>>>> |-locahost.xml (the host config)
>>>> |-localhost
>>>> |-webapp1.xml
>>>> |-webapp2.xml
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... wonder how ward it would be to implement this? Do you see any problems?
>>>
>>> You might be able to achieve it with XML includes.
>>>
>>> I recall previous discussion on the list describing this as possible - why not give it a try& report back?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I remember. I think I was going to look at it back then :)
>>
>> The problem with XML Include or (even worse) DTD defined entities is that if the included file is changed (the host files are set to be watched, because it would not appear the server.xml has changed) it would currently need to reconfigure the whole server (I think). It would be better if tomcat could recognize just one host haas changed and reload it. Haven't had a major itch here, so just throwing it out :)
>
>
> Additionally, if you added a new host, you would need to edit the server.xml to add a reference to it. It would be much nicer if it worked like context config files. The file system currently being used for tomcat seems perfectly set up for such a thing.
I don't believe that the config parser can cope with making dynamic
changes to the server's structure. It is possible to make fairly
significant changes via JMX.
p
> best,
> -Rob
>
>
>>
>> best,
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Pid wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2009 11:57, Robert Koberg wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer<ke...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>>>>> indeed the static content part.
>>>>
>>>> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
>>>> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
>>>> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
>>>> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
>>>>
>>>>> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
>>>>> pure tomcat?)
>>>>
>>>> Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
>>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
>>>> (assuming version 6.0.x).
>>>
>>> It would be easier if you could keep your host configuration separate from the server.xml, similar to contexts. For example, the file system would look like:
>>>
>>> -tomcat
>>> |-conf
>>> |-server.xml
>>> |-Catalina
>>> |-locahost.xml (the host config)
>>> |-localhost
>>> |-webapp1.xml
>>> |-webapp2.xml
>>>
>>> Hmmm... wonder how ward it would be to implement this? Do you see any problems?
>>
>> You might be able to achieve it with XML includes.
>>
>> I recall previous discussion on the list describing this as possible - why not give it a try & report back?
>
>
> Yes, I remember. I think I was going to look at it back then :)
>
> The problem with XML Include or (even worse) DTD defined entities is that if the included file is changed (the host files are set to be watched, because it would not appear the server.xml has changed) it would currently need to reconfigure the whole server (I think). It would be better if tomcat could recognize just one host haas changed and reload it. Haven't had a major itch here, so just throwing it out :)
Additionally, if you added a new host, you would need to edit the server.xml to add a reference to it. It would be much nicer if it worked like context config files. The file system currently being used for tomcat seems perfectly set up for such a thing.
best,
-Rob
>
> best,
> -Rob
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 24/11/2009 11:57, Robert Koberg wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer<ke...@gmail.com>:
>>>> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>>>> indeed the static content part.
>>>
>>> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
>>> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
>>> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
>>> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
>>>
>>>> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
>>>> pure tomcat?)
>>>
>>> Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
>>> (assuming version 6.0.x).
>>
>> It would be easier if you could keep your host configuration separate from the server.xml, similar to contexts. For example, the file system would look like:
>>
>> -tomcat
>> |-conf
>> |-server.xml
>> |-Catalina
>> |-locahost.xml (the host config)
>> |-localhost
>> |-webapp1.xml
>> |-webapp2.xml
>>
>> Hmmm... wonder how ward it would be to implement this? Do you see any problems?
>
> You might be able to achieve it with XML includes.
>
> I recall previous discussion on the list describing this as possible - why not give it a try & report back?
Yes, I remember. I think I was going to look at it back then :)
The problem with XML Include or (even worse) DTD defined entities is that if the included file is changed (the host files are set to be watched, because it would not appear the server.xml has changed) it would currently need to reconfigure the whole server (I think). It would be better if tomcat could recognize just one host haas changed and reload it. Haven't had a major itch here, so just throwing it out :)
best,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 24/11/2009 11:57, Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer<ke...@gmail.com>:
>>> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>>> indeed the static content part.
>>
>> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
>> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
>> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
>> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
>>
>>> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
>>> pure tomcat?)
>>
>> Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
>> (assuming version 6.0.x).
>
> It would be easier if you could keep your host configuration separate from the server.xml, similar to contexts. For example, the file system would look like:
>
> -tomcat
> |-conf
> |-server.xml
> |-Catalina
> |-locahost.xml (the host config)
> |-localhost
> |-webapp1.xml
> |-webapp2.xml
>
> Hmmm... wonder how ward it would be to implement this? Do you see any problems?
You might be able to achieve it with XML includes.
I recall previous discussion on the list describing this as possible -
why not give it a try & report back?
p
> -Rob
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>:
>> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
>> indeed the static content part.
>
> http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
> illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
> suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
> knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
>
>> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
>> pure tomcat?)
>
> Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
> (assuming version 6.0.x).
It would be easier if you could keep your host configuration separate from the server.xml, similar to contexts. For example, the file system would look like:
-tomcat
|-conf
|-server.xml
|-Catalina
|-locahost.xml (the host config)
|-localhost
|-webapp1.xml
|-webapp2.xml
Hmmm... wonder how ward it would be to implement this? Do you see any problems?
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Peter Crowther <pe...@melandra.com>.
2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>:
> The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
> indeed the static content part.
http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/il33wqqjb2dok6xz might be
illuminating - along with the discussion around it on that thread. I
suspect Chris will be making his own comments on this thread, as he
knows his benchmarking results better than anyone!
> But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
> pure tomcat?)
Easy in pure Tomcat. Outlined at
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/virtual-hosting-howto.html
(assuming version 6.0.x).
> and modules.
Which ones might you want? The commonest would be a mod_rewrite, for
which http://tuckey.org/urlrewrite should work just fine.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>.
Peter Crowther wrote:
>
> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>
>
>> Im pretty new to this but have 2 friends that help me out. Though one of
>> my
>> friends tells me to use Apache2 infront of Tomcat and the other one tells
>> me
>> it's unnecessary.
>>
>
> Finding out their reasoning - and the evidence each one has supporting
> their
> point of view - would be interesting.
>
> I'll try to explain my situation:
>> I've started a virtual Ubuntu 8.04 Longterm server and my goal is to have
>> atleast one serious site (made in Grails) and beeing a search engine
>> (think
>> youtube). So it's gonna be pretty much dynamic content and less static.
>> But
>> I will also start some sites just for fun that probobly won't have that
>> much
>> visitors but beeing abit more static content.
>> Im not saying my primary site will get much visitors but I want to build
>> the
>> environment as if it has.
>> Ps. I will probobly put a Varnish at the front sooner or later (for the
>> experience)
>>
>> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste
>> of
>> time or worth while?
>>
>> As always, it depends on your environment, wishes and skills.
>
> Tomcat has a reputation for being slow to serve static content. For 5.5+,
> that reputation is not deserved - you'll saturate your network connection
> long before you run out of CPU. So the "old" reason to put Apache httpd
> (hereafter just "httpd") in front of Tomcat no longer applies.
>
> If you add httpd, you also need to add a connection between httpd and
> Tomcat. More moving parts, more to maintain, higher CPU, use, higher
> memory
> use and higher latency on all requests that go to Tomcat.
>
> If you add httpd and don't configure the connection carefully, it's quite
> easy to expose the source of your JSPs and your webapp configuration -
> which
> may expose passwords, for example. So poor configuration of httpd+Tomcat
> can be a security risk.
>
> httpd can act as a very effective load-balancer for Tomcat if you don't
> want
> to use a hardware load-balancer.
>
> httpd has modules that are faster at serving non-Java dynamic content
> (PHP,
> perl etc) than Tomcat's CGI.
>
> httpd has mod_security, which may aid in site security if correctly
> configured (and can be a real PITA if not correctly configured).
>
> Pick the points from the above that apply to your site, and decide whether
> it's right for you. There is no Right or Wrong answer.
>
> - Peter
>
>
Thanks for the reply (same goes for you, Pid Ster).
The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
indeed the static content part. But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
pure tomcat?) and modules.
I probobly won't use Apache2 as a load balancer since if I even get that far
I'll use Varnish or maybe even a VM just for load balancing.
So out of your list, I would say pure Tomcat is what suits me the best.
Keep the input comming! Really interesting to read. (Im guessing not just
for me).
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Tomcat-6-and-Apache2-VS-Tomcat-6-alone-tp26493078p26493798.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Peter Crowther <pe...@melandra.com>.
2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>
> Im pretty new to this but have 2 friends that help me out. Though one of my
> friends tells me to use Apache2 infront of Tomcat and the other one tells
> me
> it's unnecessary.
>
Finding out their reasoning - and the evidence each one has supporting their
point of view - would be interesting.
I'll try to explain my situation:
> I've started a virtual Ubuntu 8.04 Longterm server and my goal is to have
> atleast one serious site (made in Grails) and beeing a search engine (think
> youtube). So it's gonna be pretty much dynamic content and less static. But
> I will also start some sites just for fun that probobly won't have that
> much
> visitors but beeing abit more static content.
> Im not saying my primary site will get much visitors but I want to build
> the
> environment as if it has.
> Ps. I will probobly put a Varnish at the front sooner or later (for the
> experience)
>
> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste of
> time or worth while?
>
> As always, it depends on your environment, wishes and skills.
Tomcat has a reputation for being slow to serve static content. For 5.5+,
that reputation is not deserved - you'll saturate your network connection
long before you run out of CPU. So the "old" reason to put Apache httpd
(hereafter just "httpd") in front of Tomcat no longer applies.
If you add httpd, you also need to add a connection between httpd and
Tomcat. More moving parts, more to maintain, higher CPU, use, higher memory
use and higher latency on all requests that go to Tomcat.
If you add httpd and don't configure the connection carefully, it's quite
easy to expose the source of your JSPs and your webapp configuration - which
may expose passwords, for example. So poor configuration of httpd+Tomcat
can be a security risk.
httpd can act as a very effective load-balancer for Tomcat if you don't want
to use a hardware load-balancer.
httpd has modules that are faster at serving non-Java dynamic content (PHP,
perl etc) than Tomcat's CGI.
httpd has mod_security, which may aid in site security if correctly
configured (and can be a real PITA if not correctly configured).
Pick the points from the above that apply to your site, and decide whether
it's right for you. There is no Right or Wrong answer.
- Peter
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Leon Rosenberg <ro...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:56 AM, TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And my "Tomcat alone"-friend thought I should go Varnish if I was to load
> balance with 2 Tomcats or something like that, but that's a different story.
> Not Apache2 anyway.
So one of your friends suggests httpd for static content and virtual hosts, and
another of your friends suggests varnish as loadbalancer.
Maybe you should hang around with your friends drinking beer and
stuff, but ask real experts when it comes to deployment questions ;-)
regards
Leon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by TheGrailer <ke...@gmail.com>.
Markus Schönhaber-10 wrote:
>
> TheGrailer:
>
>> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste
>> of
>> time or worth while?
>
> I agree with what Pid and Peter already said. Just to phrase it with my
> own words: I see two major reasons why you'd want to put httpd in front
> of Tomcat
> 1. To act as a load balancer for multiple Tomcats.
> 2. To serve dynamic content written in something that Tomcat isn't able
> to process as good as httpd (if at all), for example PHP.
>
> Judging from what you wrote, neither seems to apply to your case.
> Nevertheless it would be interesting to hear why your friend, who
> advocates the use of httpd, thinks this additional complexity is
> justified.
> In my experience, simply having some static content to serve, isn't a
> justification.
>
> --
> Regards
> mks
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
To start with, thanks for your input!
I can almost certainately say I won't go other than Java/Groovy so PHP and
all that won't be needed.
And my "Tomcat alone"-friend thought I should go Varnish if I was to load
balance with 2 Tomcats or something like that, but that's a different story.
Not Apache2 anyway.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Tomcat-6-and-Apache2-VS-Tomcat-6-alone-tp26493078p26493902.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Markus Schönhaber <to...@list-post.mks-mail.de>.
TheGrailer:
> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste of
> time or worth while?
I agree with what Pid and Peter already said. Just to phrase it with my
own words: I see two major reasons why you'd want to put httpd in front
of Tomcat
1. To act as a load balancer for multiple Tomcats.
2. To serve dynamic content written in something that Tomcat isn't able
to process as good as httpd (if at all), for example PHP.
Judging from what you wrote, neither seems to apply to your case.
Nevertheless it would be interesting to hear why your friend, who
advocates the use of httpd, thinks this additional complexity is justified.
In my experience, simply having some static content to serve, isn't a
justification.
--
Regards
mks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 and Apache2 VS Tomcat 6 alone
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 24/11/2009 09:47, TheGrailer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Im pretty new to this but have 2 friends that help me out. Though one of my
> friends tells me to use Apache2 infront of Tomcat and the other one tells me
> it's unnecessary.
Single server? Tomcat alone is just fine.
> I'll try to explain my situation:
> I've started a virtual Ubuntu 8.04 Longterm server and my goal is to have
> atleast one serious site (made in Grails) and beeing a search engine (think
> youtube). So it's gonna be pretty much dynamic content and less static. But
> I will also start some sites just for fun that probobly won't have that much
> visitors but beeing abit more static content.
You said "static", which I'd guess means that you've had the somewhat
out of date "Apache HTTPD is faster at serving static content" conversation.
> Im not saying my primary site will get much visitors but I want to build the
> environment as if it has.
> Ps. I will probobly put a Varnish at the front sooner or later (for the
> experience)
>
> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste of
> time or worth while?
Well, if you look at it from the point of view that HTTPD + Connector +
Tomcat is a longer codepath, then it ought to be less performant to use
both, no?
Tomcat comes with a library called APR, which is the the same code
library that Apache HTTPD uses. Install that & Tomcat is as fast as its
sibling, simply by dint of the fact that they use the same code.
> I'd love to have as many inputs as possible!
I'd hazard a(n educated) guess that the comments will be largely one
sided from this list.
p
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org