Is the JK Connector the definite one to use as a web connector?

[Chris Mooring <Ch...@connaught.plc.uk>]

Hi All,

I have just read various configuration documents for jk2 and jk. It seems as
though support for jk2 is no longer available.
Is jk the recommended connector to use now? It seems odd...like I am using a
previous version. 

Also, I'd still love to hear from anyone about my previous question on
whether Tomcat's native HTTP server is a better option than using a setup
such as IIS or Apache and a connector like JK. See my previous e-mail pasted
below;

Thanks,
Chris

Previous question on performance of Tomcat native HTTP server vs Apache/IIS
and connectors.

Hi All,

I am trying to determine which will deliver better performance;
1) Tomcat's Native HTTP server

2) IIS or Apache with JK2 connectors

I have read in one book (Professional Apache Tomcat 5 SE - Chapter 11) the
following info;
"Performance-Tomcat is inherently slower than a Web server. Therefore, it is
better for the
Web server to serve up static content, while Tomcat handles the dynamic
content (JSPs
and Servlets). Passing requests for static HTML pages, images, and style
sheets through a
Servlet container written in Java is not as efficient compared to a Web
server."

However, this book was written in 2004. 

The current documentation regarding Tomcat 5.5.x connectors at
<http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.5-doc/connectors.html> specifies a
contradictory view;
"When using a single server, the performance when using a native webserver
in front of the Tomcat instance is most of the time significantly worse than
a standalone Tomcat with its default HTTP connector, even if a large part of
the web application is made of static files. If integration with the native
webserver is needed for any reason, an AJP connector will provide faster
performance than proxied HTTP. AJP clustering is the most efficient from the
Tomcat perspective. It is otherwise functionally equivalent to HTTP
clustering."

Any ideas on which provides better performance would be appreciated.

Another point to note is that we require virtual directories for various
reasons. Is it possible to set these up using Tomcat's native HTTP server?
If not, this may force the issue of which architecture we use.

Once again, any help is appreciated.

Regards,
Chris



Connaught honoured AIM 'Decade of Excellence' Award 

Connaught awarded Partnering Contractor of the Year 2005 

Connaught wins AIM 'Company of the Year' award 2004 

West of England Business of the Year Award Winner 2003 

Why not visit our website http://www.connaught.plc.uk 

Disclaimer: 
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete this message. 

Connaught plc, Head Office 01392 444546 

The presence of this footer indicates that this message has been scanned for
viruses by Network Associates Group Shield

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

Re: Is the JK Connector the definite one to use as a web connector?

[Remy Maucherat <re...@gmail.com>]

On 1/17/06, Chris Mooring <Ch...@connaught.plc.uk> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have just read various configuration documents for jk2 and jk. It seems as
> though support for jk2 is no longer available.
> Is jk the recommended connector to use now? It seems odd...like I am using a
> previous version.
>
> Also, I'd still love to hear from anyone about my previous question on
> whether Tomcat's native HTTP server is a better option than using a setup
> such as IIS or Apache and a connector like JK. See my previous e-mail pasted
> below;
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> Previous question on performance of Tomcat native HTTP server vs Apache/IIS
> and connectors.
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to determine which will deliver better performance;
> 1) Tomcat's Native HTTP server
>
> 2) IIS or Apache with JK2 connectors

If you have only one server, 1 will be faster and easier to maintain
in almost all situations (proxying, even with a fairly optimized
protocol like AJP, is quite expensive).

--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rémy Maucherat
Developer & Consultant
JBoss Group (Europe) SàRL
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Re: Is the JK Connector the definite one to use as a web connector?

[Mladen Turk <ml...@jboss.com>]

Chris Mooring wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I have just read various configuration documents for jk2 and jk. It seems as
> though support for jk2 is no longer available.
> Is jk the recommended connector to use now? It seems odd...like I am using a
> previous version. 
>

Right, use jk. In month or so it will be renamed to jk3 so all the
oddity will be lost :)

> Also, I'd still love to hear from anyone about my previous question on
> whether Tomcat's native HTTP server is a better option than using a setup
> such as IIS or Apache and a connector like JK. See my previous e-mail pasted
> below;
> 

If you don't need a special things from native web server, then using
Tomcat Native will give you much higher performance if you
compare native web server and Tomcat.

Just as an example for ab –n 500000 –c xx localhost:// (1k file)
Tomcat + Native: 14600 req/sec
Apache 2.0.54  : 9200 req/sec

What's interesting is that you can replicate that by yourself :)

Regards,
Mladen.



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