mod_jk vs. mod_proxy_ajp

[Edmon Begoli <eb...@gmail.com>]

I am seeing more and more blog entries and articles suggesting using
mod_proxy_ajp over mod_jk.

I have two questions on this subject:

Can someone from this list please provide some practical examples and real
stories on why should one use mod_proxy over mod_jk?

Is mod_proxy meant as a future replacement for mod_jk (since they are both
oficially hosted by Apache team and since mod_proxy is built into
Apache 2.2web server)?


-- 
Thank you,
Edmon Begoli
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/software

Re: mod_jk vs. mod_proxy_ajp

[Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>]

All,

> I am seeing more and more blog entries and articles suggesting using
> mod_proxy_ajp over mod_jk.
> 
> I have two questions on this subject:
> 
> Can someone from this list please provide some practical examples and real
> stories on why should one use mod_proxy over mod_jk?

I have to say that I tried mod_proxy_ajp recently, and was unable to get
it to do everything I needed. It appears to work well if all you want to
do it take an entire URL space and sent it to Tomcat.

In our case, we have the following additional requirements:

1) We'd like Apache to serve static content. It did not appear that
   Apache was serving the static files for us.
2) We needed to have certain parts of the URL space point to another
   instance of Tomcat (running Cocoon in this case), which /was/
   possible, but required a mod_rewrite hack or two.
3) Alias, Rewrite, and other directives appear to be trumped by
   mod_proxy because that's what a Proxy does -- route data.

Personally, I hope that mod_jk does not go away because the
configuration for complex setups is /soooo/ much easier using it.
mod_proxy_ajp either needs a lot of work, or much better documentation
for cases like this.

Assuming that mod_proxy_ajp is intended to be a /proxy/ (hence the
name), I think this is the wrong direction to go; we don't need a proxy
to shuttle /all/ requests to and from Tomcat. We need something where we
can specify /exact/ URLs as well as URL patterns to be proxied.
mod_proxy only allows what look like directories (URL prefixes ending in
'/') and /everything/ below, and appears to forward everything. :(

-chris

Re: mod_jk vs. mod_proxy_ajp

[Maurice Yarrow <ya...@best.com>]

Hello Greg

Glad you wrote this.  I also found mod_proxy simple to set up and
versatile (can also be used with a package such as mod_proxy_html
 - http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/ - for even greater
flexibility.)

According to a benchmark I saw (sorry, can't remember where)
the specialized connectors such as mod_jk are about
1.5 times the speed of mod_proxy.  This speed differential may
be a consequential performance factor for some, but for our needs,
the simplicity of mod_proxy usage is a major factor.

Maurice Yarrow


Greg Gamble wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:48:17PM -0400, Edmon Begoli wrote:
>  
>
>>I am seeing more and more blog entries and articles suggesting using
>>mod_proxy_ajp over mod_jk.
>>
>>I have two questions on this subject:
>>
>>Can someone from this list please provide some practical examples and real
>>stories on why should one use mod_proxy over mod_jk?
>>
>>Is mod_proxy meant as a future replacement for mod_jk (since they are both
>>oficially hosted by Apache team and since mod_proxy is built into
>>Apache 2.2web server)?
>>    
>>
>
>Dear Edmon,
>
>I think you've answered your own question ... mod_proxy is built into
>Apache 2.2. I was about to use mod_jk and thanks to Gael who gave (the longer
>and more complex) instructions for mod_jk but explained that the functionality 
>I was after was provided by mod_proxy and built into Apache 2.2s; so, I just 
>installed Apache 2.2 ... setting up the proxy worked first go just following 
>the easy instructions in the docs. I can't say whether it's worth switching
>if you already have a working mod_jk installation. All I can say is
>setting up the proxy port for tomcat with mod_proxy was painless. 
>Hope that's of some help.
>
>  Regards,
>  Greg Gamble
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>  
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: mod_jk vs. mod_proxy_ajp

[Greg Gamble <gr...@maths.uwa.edu.au>]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:48:17PM -0400, Edmon Begoli wrote:
> I am seeing more and more blog entries and articles suggesting using
> mod_proxy_ajp over mod_jk.
> 
> I have two questions on this subject:
> 
> Can someone from this list please provide some practical examples and real
> stories on why should one use mod_proxy over mod_jk?
> 
> Is mod_proxy meant as a future replacement for mod_jk (since they are both
> oficially hosted by Apache team and since mod_proxy is built into
> Apache 2.2web server)?

Dear Edmon,

I think you've answered your own question ... mod_proxy is built into
Apache 2.2. I was about to use mod_jk and thanks to Gael who gave (the longer
and more complex) instructions for mod_jk but explained that the functionality 
I was after was provided by mod_proxy and built into Apache 2.2s; so, I just 
installed Apache 2.2 ... setting up the proxy worked first go just following 
the easy instructions in the docs. I can't say whether it's worth switching
if you already have a working mod_jk installation. All I can say is
setting up the proxy port for tomcat with mod_proxy was painless. 
Hope that's of some help.

  Regards,
  Greg Gamble


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org