If Tomcat is so "easy to administer," how the @()[EMAIL PROTECTED] do you get the damn thing to do SSL. That's about six mouse clicks in IIS, including the entire process of obtaining and applying the certificate. Nothing in what passes for documentation in the tomcat space clearly describes how to request and apply the certificate and turn on SSL, specifically on Windows servers (Win2K3 Enterprise x64). They frame everything in *nix terms, and the only *nix I allow anywhere near me is well hidden underneath OS X. I have no problems with editing configuration files versus clicking control panel checkboxes (they usually write out to config files in the background anyway), but getting a certificate applied to Tomcat is apparently not something you can do by editing files.
I have tested IIS/ServeltExec and IIS/Tomcat compared to Tomcat/Tomcat, and the mid-tier runs best and pre-fetches the most reliably on Tomcat/Tomcat. Prefetch of the ITSM 7 application kills ServletExec 2/3 of the time, before the prefetch completes. IIS/Tomcat is a shotgun wedding with an extra component in the middle to degrade performance, but if I can't get some information on tomcat SSL we may be forced to use IIS/Tomcat. None of our web server administrators apparently know anything about Tomcat web server, and it is not the same as the Apache web servers they use. Plus everything you need for BMC ITSM installation wants to install its own instance of Tomcat (mid-tier, RKM, Crystal Report Server XI, also Kinetic if you have it too), or fight over the primary instance (SLM Collector - which you are better off using with ServletExec AS). Then they all fight over the JVM. It isn't just a simple IIS or Apache (or Tomcat) question, but how many of them and where to install them to support all of the different apps for ITSM+ without having them all stomp on each other. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:07 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS > > If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. > > There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of > which is that the web server itself has been time tested and > beaten to death repeatedly on web servers all over the > internet. It has seen the best and worst that can be offered > by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in > the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets > the job done. > > Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an > 'explorer' to do the job with eye candy and mouse clicks. > There is a configuration file, and a text editor. Really that > is all that is needed. If you've got something in front of > you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling > something again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, > give them a boot in the wazoo and close the door. > > Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the > ability to expand and change platforms if your situation > changes at some point in the future. Likewise, there are > enough modules and methods of customization for it which give > it a significant amount of flexibility. > > Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - > the source code is available for review and not locked away > in someone's internal source server because it 'represents a > source of IP,' or because 'they want to ensure a significant > return on their investment for the shareholders.' (Jeez... > Just typing that makes me feel the need for a > shower.) > > Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe > against IIS, is that the <bleep> web server is *not* divorced > from the operating system that it sits upon. Thus, there is > no single installer or package available in which you can > install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an older > operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be > one less reason to upgrade, right? > > In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me > silly but why, ohh, why should an operating system patch > affect a web server so that it causes it to crash because > both file system permissions have been changed and the > internet guest account gets messed up? We had that happen > with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. > Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS > servers for a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) > > An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break > them up and try to install something like Atlanta in there > anyway? Apache is best suited to serve static content, such > as images and regular files, html docs and the like. Tomcat > is best for JSP. The connector that bridges them together is > conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which I > have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta > are left to, well, smaller installations and I honestly > sometimes consider them - ahem > - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into > the IIS server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a > diaper, or a 40 mega-joule crash cart depending...) > Similarly, running Tomcat withouth Apache in front of it just > seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole other topic and I > digress.... > > In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, > you may not have the choice in the end. Your environment will > most likely dictate which platform to use, simply by the > ability that is present to support it. If you have a few good > *nix people running around, chances are you could make an > Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on a > Windows platform, supporting the application is similar > enough that the skillset can be used. > > By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find > yourself is dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags > on everything and people with a strange fixation on blue polo > shirts and khackis, well, IIS & Atlanta may be your only > choice because the point-and-click crowd is 'in the house' > (Hey, did I get the reference right that time?). > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one > would you opt > > for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, > security .. > > we are planning to install this in a clustered environment > with load > > balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any > > with running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? > > > > Many thanks > > frexpopo > > > > -- > > Will Du Chene > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.myspace.com/wduchene > > ______________________________________________________________ > _________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
