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 2002/09/06 23:24:21 UTC
Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or Tomcat
with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat Apache -
or is it something else?
John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root. Are
there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
Thanks.
Neal
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by micael <ca...@harbornet.com>.
Here is a benchmark test. I don't know if it is generally reliable, but it
fits with experience I have had where they match up.
http://www.chamas.com/bench/index.html
At 05:07 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Yeah, you're right ... no one was refuting that. If anything, several
>people said the same thing you did. I guess I just don't understand why or
>to what extent that's true. I'll look into it some more and let you know
>anything I find.
>
>
>:)
>
>Neal
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
>Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:53 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>I did the comparison about a year ago, and things change. I have no heard
>of a change in this regard. That would be a huge, unprecedented change for
>Tomcat, and I have been following Tomcat daily. I notice that no one
>disputed the suggestions I made, so I assume the tests are still at least
>roughly valid. The issue is thousands versus hundreds, neal.
>
>There are lots of benchmark studies. Just look around. It is not close,
>neal. If you find something different, I would be really interested.
>
>Maybe your source meant that Tomcat and like servers can serve jsp almost
>like html. That is not saying that Tomcat can serve jsp like Apache can
>serve html.
>
>I cannot think of a good reason to have Tomcat serve html off hand.
>
>You can cache anything. The question is whether there is an efficient way
>to make that useful to do. Why do it when Apache is there?
>
>Do you have some reason why you don't want to use Apache?
>
>I hope, again, that this is not offensive. Not meant to be.
>
>Micael
>
>At 03:22 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
> >
> >I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
> >typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
> >said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
> >Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
> >serving HTML?
> >
> >Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
> >but doesn't apply to all app servers?
> >
> >Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
> >faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
> >
> >Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
> >Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
> >this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
> >To: Tomcat Users List
> >Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> >Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
> >faster, of course, if you have static content running.
> >
> >At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Alright,
> > >
> > >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> > >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
> >what
> > >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> > >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone
>in
> > >production is foolish, right?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >Neal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> > >To: Tomcat Users List
> > >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> > >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site,
>standalone
> > >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has
>also
> > >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for
>adding
> > >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and
>other
> > >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> > >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> > >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
> >jsp
> > >/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
> > >
> > >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> > >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> > >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not
>designed
> > >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
> >have
> > >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
> >never
> > >sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
> > >
> > >Randy
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> > >To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> > >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> > >Tomcat
> > > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> > >Apache -
> > > > or is it something else?
> > > >
> > > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as
>root.
> > >Are
> > > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Neal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >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>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>
>
>
>--
>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>
On Resin, Tomcat and Apache.
Posted by Sriram N <sr...@yahoo.com>.
Hi all,
I saw the past few days' posts on resin vs tomcat, and tomcat vs apache.
I just went over to resin's site, and here's what they have to say:
"
Resin includes a full-featured HTTP/1.1 web server dedicated to serving fast
Java dynamic content. While Resin is tuned for dynamic content, its static file
performance matches or beats Apache's static performance. Many, if not most,
sites will use Resin's web server for all their web server requests.
"
But if you go over to "http://www.caucho.com/articles/jsp_benchmarks.xtp",
which is available as a link on the same page, you'll notice that they're
talking only about serving JSPs. And they use JDK 1.1.7, and they compare with
JServ, and not Tomcat.
I can't comment on JServ, since I'd used it for just day before I discovered
Tomcat.
I remember coming across a post by Craig (in either of Tomcat-user or
Tomcat-dev) that with today's JDKs reflection etc is very fast, and Tomcat by
itself is very fast.
For a web-solution that we gave to a bank, I built a app that contained
Embedded Tomcat 4.0.1, and the customers are satisfied with the performance.
And with the new Jasper and the whole lot of improvements that have been, I'd
say that Tomcat today is much more improved than what it was a year ago.
Sriram
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by micael <ca...@harbornet.com>.
Keep in mind, neal, that the servlet created in the work directory is
really what is doing the work. I don't know in these tests what some of
the configurations are either. If they did not, for example, turn off the
"reloadable" attribute, then that would be really
unfair. UNFAIR! lol! The jsp is only good the first time through, so
that you really are comparing html to servlets in a sense, not to jsp.
At 05:07 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Yeah, you're right ... no one was refuting that. If anything, several
>people said the same thing you did. I guess I just don't understand why or
>to what extent that's true. I'll look into it some more and let you know
>anything I find.
>
>
>:)
>
>Neal
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
>Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:53 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>I did the comparison about a year ago, and things change. I have no heard
>of a change in this regard. That would be a huge, unprecedented change for
>Tomcat, and I have been following Tomcat daily. I notice that no one
>disputed the suggestions I made, so I assume the tests are still at least
>roughly valid. The issue is thousands versus hundreds, neal.
>
>There are lots of benchmark studies. Just look around. It is not close,
>neal. If you find something different, I would be really interested.
>
>Maybe your source meant that Tomcat and like servers can serve jsp almost
>like html. That is not saying that Tomcat can serve jsp like Apache can
>serve html.
>
>I cannot think of a good reason to have Tomcat serve html off hand.
>
>You can cache anything. The question is whether there is an efficient way
>to make that useful to do. Why do it when Apache is there?
>
>Do you have some reason why you don't want to use Apache?
>
>I hope, again, that this is not offensive. Not meant to be.
>
>Micael
>
>At 03:22 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
> >
> >I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
> >typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
> >said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
> >Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
> >serving HTML?
> >
> >Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
> >but doesn't apply to all app servers?
> >
> >Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
> >faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
> >
> >Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
> >Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
> >this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
> >To: Tomcat Users List
> >Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> >Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
> >faster, of course, if you have static content running.
> >
> >At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Alright,
> > >
> > >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> > >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
> >what
> > >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> > >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone
>in
> > >production is foolish, right?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >Neal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> > >To: Tomcat Users List
> > >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> > >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site,
>standalone
> > >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has
>also
> > >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for
>adding
> > >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and
>other
> > >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> > >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> > >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
> >jsp
> > >/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
> > >
> > >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> > >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> > >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not
>designed
> > >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
> >have
> > >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
> >never
> > >sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
> > >
> > >Randy
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> > >To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> > >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> > >Tomcat
> > > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> > >Apache -
> > > > or is it something else?
> > > >
> > > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as
>root.
> > >Are
> > > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Neal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >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>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>
>
>
>--
>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: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by Milt Epstein <me...@uiuc.edu>.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, micael wrote:
> I did the comparison about a year ago, and things change. I have no
> heard of a change in this regard. That would be a huge,
> unprecedented change for Tomcat, and I have been following Tomcat
> daily. I notice that no one disputed the suggestions I made, so I
> assume the tests are still at least roughly valid. The issue is
> thousands versus hundreds, neal.
I wouldn't attribute much significance to the fact that no one has
disputed your comments, there are plenty of other possible
explanations for that.
> There are lots of benchmark studies. Just look around. It is not
> close, neal. If you find something different, I would be really
> interested.
>
> Maybe your source meant that Tomcat and like servers can serve jsp
> almost like html. That is not saying that Tomcat can serve jsp like
> Apache can serve html.
>
> I cannot think of a good reason to have Tomcat serve html off hand.
The thing is, that may not be the right way to look at it. For
example, one can just as easily say "I cannot think of a good reason
to have Apache involved with serving dynamic content off hand".
Remember that just as there is a penalty for having Tomcat serve
static content, there is a penalty for having Apache involved with
dynamic content. You have to look at the total picture. If a site is
90% dynamic content, it may very well work out better going with
Tomcat standalone. (I have no idea where the exact break-even point
lies.)
> You can cache anything. The question is whether there is an
> efficient way to make that useful to do. Why do it when Apache is
> there?
>
> Do you have some reason why you don't want to use Apache?
[ ... ]
Not using Apache improves performance on dynamic content (well,
servlets/JSPs), and makes setup/configuration much simpler.
I'm not saying Tomcat standalone is always the way to go, I'm just
saying that I can imagine situations where it is.
> At 03:22 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
> >
> >I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
> >typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
> >said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
> >Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
> >serving HTML?
> >
> >Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
> >but doesn't apply to all app servers?
> >
> >Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
> >faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
> >
> >Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
> >Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
> >this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
> >To: Tomcat Users List
> >Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> >Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
> >faster, of course, if you have static content running.
> >
> >At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Alright,
> > >
> > >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> > >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
> >what
> > >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> > >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in
> > >production is foolish, right?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >Neal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> > >To: Tomcat Users List
> > >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> > >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
> > >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
> > >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
> > >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
> > >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> > >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> > >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
> >jsp
> > >/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
> > >
> > >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> > >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> > >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
> > >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
> >have
> > >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
> >never
> > >sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
> > >
> > >Randy
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> > >To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> > >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> > >
> > >
> > > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> > >Tomcat
> > > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> > >Apache -
> > > > or is it something else?
> > > >
> > > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
> > >Are
> > > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Neal
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>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by neal <ne...@yahoo.com>.
Yeah, you're right ... no one was refuting that. If anything, several
people said the same thing you did. I guess I just don't understand why or
to what extent that's true. I'll look into it some more and let you know
anything I find.
:)
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:53 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
I did the comparison about a year ago, and things change. I have no heard
of a change in this regard. That would be a huge, unprecedented change for
Tomcat, and I have been following Tomcat daily. I notice that no one
disputed the suggestions I made, so I assume the tests are still at least
roughly valid. The issue is thousands versus hundreds, neal.
There are lots of benchmark studies. Just look around. It is not close,
neal. If you find something different, I would be really interested.
Maybe your source meant that Tomcat and like servers can serve jsp almost
like html. That is not saying that Tomcat can serve jsp like Apache can
serve html.
I cannot think of a good reason to have Tomcat serve html off hand.
You can cache anything. The question is whether there is an efficient way
to make that useful to do. Why do it when Apache is there?
Do you have some reason why you don't want to use Apache?
I hope, again, that this is not offensive. Not meant to be.
Micael
At 03:22 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
>
>I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
>typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
>said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
>Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
>serving HTML?
>
>Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
>but doesn't apply to all app servers?
>
>Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
>faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
>
>Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
>Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
>this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
>
>Thanks
>Neal
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
>faster, of course, if you have static content running.
>
>At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Alright,
> >
> >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
>what
> >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone
in
> >production is foolish, right?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> >To: Tomcat Users List
> >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site,
standalone
> >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has
also
> >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for
adding
> >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and
other
> >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
>jsp
> >/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
> >
> >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not
designed
> >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
>have
> >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
>never
> >sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
> >
> >Randy
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> >To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> >Tomcat
> > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> >Apache -
> > > or is it something else?
> > >
> > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as
root.
> >Are
> > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Neal
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>
>
>
>--
>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>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by micael <ca...@harbornet.com>.
I did the comparison about a year ago, and things change. I have no heard
of a change in this regard. That would be a huge, unprecedented change for
Tomcat, and I have been following Tomcat daily. I notice that no one
disputed the suggestions I made, so I assume the tests are still at least
roughly valid. The issue is thousands versus hundreds, neal.
There are lots of benchmark studies. Just look around. It is not close,
neal. If you find something different, I would be really interested.
Maybe your source meant that Tomcat and like servers can serve jsp almost
like html. That is not saying that Tomcat can serve jsp like Apache can
serve html.
I cannot think of a good reason to have Tomcat serve html off hand.
You can cache anything. The question is whether there is an efficient way
to make that useful to do. Why do it when Apache is there?
Do you have some reason why you don't want to use Apache?
I hope, again, that this is not offensive. Not meant to be.
Micael
At 03:22 PM 9/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
>
>I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
>typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
>said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
>Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
>serving HTML?
>
>Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
>but doesn't apply to all app servers?
>
>Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
>faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
>
>Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
>Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
>this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
>
>Thanks
>Neal
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
>faster, of course, if you have static content running.
>
>At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Alright,
> >
> >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
>what
> >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in
> >production is foolish, right?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> >To: Tomcat Users List
> >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
> >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
> >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
> >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
> >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
>jsp
> >/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
> >
> >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
> >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
>have
> >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
>never
> >sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
> >
> >Randy
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> >To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> >
> >
> > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> >Tomcat
> > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> >Apache -
> > > or is it something else?
> > >
> > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
> >Are
> > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Neal
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>
>
>
>--
>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: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by neal <ne...@yahoo.com>.
By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right?
I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a
typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That
said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than
Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat
serving HTML?
Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general
but doesn't apply to all app servers?
Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much
faster Apache is or shed some light on why?
Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via
Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps
this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap?
Thanks
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: micael [mailto:caraunltd@harbornet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
faster, of course, if you have static content running.
At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Alright,
>
>So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
>people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
what
>fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
>posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in
>production is foolish, right?
>
>Thanks.
>Neal
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
>suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
>Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
>been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
>extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
>scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
>serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
>connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
jsp
>/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
>
>Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
>languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
>support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
>with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
have
>also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
never
>sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
>
>Randy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
>To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
>Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
>Tomcat
> > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
>Apache -
> > or is it something else?
> >
> > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
>Are
> > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Neal
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
>
>
>--
>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>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by micael <ca...@harbornet.com>.
Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way
faster, of course, if you have static content running.
At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Alright,
>
>So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
>people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of what
>fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
>posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in
>production is foolish, right?
>
>Thanks.
>Neal
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
>I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
>suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
>Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
>been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
>extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
>scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
>serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
>connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give jsp
>/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
>
>Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
>languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
>support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
>with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I have
>also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who never
>sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
>
>Randy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
>To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
>Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
>Tomcat
> > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
>Apache -
> > or is it something else?
> >
> > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
>Are
> > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Neal
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
>
>
>--
>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: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by Randy Secrist <to...@secristfamily.com>.
You can search the web until your blue - but the truth is - this is really
new territory. I say it mostly depends on your needs. There is nothing
foolish about running tomcat standalone. I've set up a few small companies
using TC standalone only. Servlets DO handle multiple requests pretty
well - depending on their implementation - which you can research since the
source is available. :)
The issue of running the process as user x - more or less is a security
issue. As such, because it deals with a process running on an operating
system, it becomes an operating system security issue. Granted - if TC's
security is breached, then it is probably more likely that if you run as
root, an intruder could do more damage than a regular generic user could...
BUT - that is IF security is breached. TC is pretty solid - in that it
lives under the java security umbrella, with it's own security manager, and
thus protects from the standard issues that plague M$ software. This
doesn't mean it is bug free though - people find stuff all the time - but
the finding in beta testing helps protect it when it goes to release.
Running TC as another user can add complexity to the configuration - since
you have to make sure that the specified user can access resources that the
web server may need.
Hope that helps...
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> Alright,
>
> So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
> people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of
what
> fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
> posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone
in
> production is foolish, right?
>
> Thanks.
> Neal
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site,
standalone
> Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has
also
> been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for
adding
> extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
> scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give
jsp
> / servlet container abilities to Apache.
>
> Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not
designed
> with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I
have
> also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who
never
> sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
> Tomcat
> > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
> Apache -
> > or is it something else?
> >
> > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
> Are
> > there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Neal
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
>
>
> --
> 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: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by Milt Epstein <me...@uiuc.edu>.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, neal wrote:
> Alright,
>
> So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot
> of people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a
> matter of what fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet
> issues (other than posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests
> running Tomcat standalone in production is foolish, right?
As I tried to suggest in an earlier reply, I don't think you can draw
many definitive conclusions from polling this list on this topic. You
seem to be looking for a definitive answer on this question, I'm just
don't think it's so easy to come by. All you're getting are the
thoughts of a handful of semi-knowledgable people.
I suggest you do some more searching to see what other
comments/perspectives you can find on using Tomcat standalone. For
example, I went to groups.google.com and entered "tomcat standalone
production" and got "about 61" matches. You can look through those
and see what people say (I haven't yet). And/or you can try some
other searches, there or elsewhere.
And you can try it yourself for a while. Set up Tomcat standalone and
see how it performs. Try to throw some twists at
it functionality-wise and see how it does. Try to simulate your
expected load, and see if the response/performance is acceptable.
This is somewhat pioneer territory you're exploring.
Regarding the running as root issue (I assume that's what you meant by
"roon daemon"), that may or may not be an issue depending on your
circumstances. You can either run Tomcat on port 80 as root, or run
it on a non-default (for http) port, like 8080, as a safer user.
There are tradeoffs either way (I'd personally shy away from running
it as root -- no specific reason I can point to, just general
principles -- unless you expect to have a lot of users behind
proxies/firewalls who wold have trouble reaching non-default ports).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
> suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
> Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
> been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
> extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
> scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
> serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
> connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give jsp
> / servlet container abilities to Apache.
>
> Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
> languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
> support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
> with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I have
> also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who never
> sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
> Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
>
>
> > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone
> > or Tomcat with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server
> > for Tomcat Apache - or is it something else?
> >
> > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as
> > root. Are there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Neal
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>
RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by neal <ne...@yahoo.com>.
Alright,
So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of
people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of what
fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than
posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in
production is foolish, right?
Thanks.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Secrist [mailto:tomcat@secristfamily.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give jsp
/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I have
also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who never
sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
Tomcat
> with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
Apache -
> or is it something else?
>
> John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
Are
> there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
>
> Thanks.
> Neal
>
>
> --
> 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>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by Randy Secrist <to...@secristfamily.com>.
I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that
suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone
Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also
been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding
extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other
scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully
serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat
connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give jsp
/ servlet container abilities to Apache.
Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting
languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does
support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed
with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I have
also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who never
sleeps at night has probably implemented it.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "neal" <ne...@yahoo.com>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
> What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or
Tomcat
> with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat
Apache -
> or is it something else?
>
> John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root.
Are
> there any other concerns? Performance? Security?
>
> Thanks.
> Neal
>
>
> --
> 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>
AW: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache
Posted by "Power-Netz (Schwarz)" <sc...@power-netz.de>.
> What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat
> standalone or Tomcat
> with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for
> Tomcat Apache -
> or is it something else?
For help in your decision :
we run our tc standalone because nearly every page handles dynamic content.
just the layout is bases on static files which are included. In case of
using perl we create a new process and let it work for itself.
So WE have no need for Apache. OTHERS may have it while mixing PERL/PHP/JSP
together.
Make clear what you wanne do, and there will be someone with an equal webapp
who can help you..
cu M.Schwarz
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>