You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by neal <ne...@yahoo.com> on 2002/11/07 06:29:07 UTC
RE: apache/tomcat performance
This is a common topic I suppose ... whether to use Tomcat as standalone or
not. I have seen the argument that Apache is a lot faster for static content
pop up a few times ... but I don't really understand why that is.
Why is Apache so much faster with static content? Does is have a better
(presuming Tomcat has one at all) caching mechanism for alleviating disk
reads of common files? That's the only reason I can think of that Apache
would be faster. I'm sure there are reasons that I'm not thinking of,
however. Could someone fill in the gap for me? Why is Apache so much
faster?
Thanks.
Neal
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: apache/tomcat performance
Posted by neal <ne...@yahoo.com>.
Cool thanks. Good info to know. I agree - fast enough is good enough for
me right now. And, in fact I chose to go with Tomcat standalone on the
project I am just about to launch. Nonetheless, I just wanted to know the
basis for the argument to go the Apache route.
Thanks for the info.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Milt Epstein [mailto:mepstein@uiuc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: apache/tomcat performance
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, neal wrote:
> This is a common topic I suppose ... whether to use Tomcat as
> standalone or not. I have seen the argument that Apache is a lot
> faster for static content pop up a few times ... but I don't really
> understand why that is.
>
> Why is Apache so much faster with static content? Does is have a
> better (presuming Tomcat has one at all) caching mechanism for
> alleviating disk reads of common files? That's the only reason I
> can think of that Apache would be faster. I'm sure there are
> reasons that I'm not thinking of, however. Could someone fill in
> the gap for me? Why is Apache so much faster?
I think I recall seeing some posts on this list that went into a
little more detail (perhaps speculatively) as to why Apache would be
faster than Tomcat on static content. Here are some possibilities I
can think of:
1. C vs. Java
2. better use of NBIO, which has only recently been introduced in Java
3. better optimization, perhaps because Apache has been around so much
longer and has seen much greater usage than Tomcat
4. better caching
5. better compression
Also remember that with the web, we're not generally dealing with
blazing fast speed requirements, so often "fast enough" is the
criterion that should be used, not "fastest". And with static
content, there is no other processing (like DB queries) to worry
about, so it's not like there will be other potential holdups.
Another possibility (if the organization of your content fits it) is
running both Apache and Tomcat standalone. You still have to set up
Apache, but you don't have to do the Apache/Tomcat integration, which
seems to be the most problematic area. Then you can have Apache
directly handle your static content and Tomcat directly handle your
dynamic content.
Milt Epstein
Research Programmer
Integration and Software Engineering (ISE)
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
mepstein@uiuc.edu
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: apache/tomcat performance
Posted by Milt Epstein <me...@uiuc.edu>.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, neal wrote:
> This is a common topic I suppose ... whether to use Tomcat as
> standalone or not. I have seen the argument that Apache is a lot
> faster for static content pop up a few times ... but I don't really
> understand why that is.
>
> Why is Apache so much faster with static content? Does is have a
> better (presuming Tomcat has one at all) caching mechanism for
> alleviating disk reads of common files? That's the only reason I
> can think of that Apache would be faster. I'm sure there are
> reasons that I'm not thinking of, however. Could someone fill in
> the gap for me? Why is Apache so much faster?
I think I recall seeing some posts on this list that went into a
little more detail (perhaps speculatively) as to why Apache would be
faster than Tomcat on static content. Here are some possibilities I
can think of:
1. C vs. Java
2. better use of NBIO, which has only recently been introduced in Java
3. better optimization, perhaps because Apache has been around so much
longer and has seen much greater usage than Tomcat
4. better caching
5. better compression
Also remember that with the web, we're not generally dealing with
blazing fast speed requirements, so often "fast enough" is the
criterion that should be used, not "fastest". And with static
content, there is no other processing (like DB queries) to worry
about, so it's not like there will be other potential holdups.
Another possibility (if the organization of your content fits it) is
running both Apache and Tomcat standalone. You still have to set up
Apache, but you don't have to do the Apache/Tomcat integration, which
seems to be the most problematic area. Then you can have Apache
directly handle your static content and Tomcat directly handle your
dynamic content.
Milt Epstein
Research Programmer
Integration and Software Engineering (ISE)
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
mepstein@uiuc.edu
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>