I think that benchmarking that shows mod_proxy as faster than mod_jk is highly suspect.
While mod_jk does faff about a lot - changing strings into single bytes and then back again, mod_proxy does not use persistent connectons and must reestablish a TCP/IP connection for each request. I would only expect mod_proxy to be faster if the load presented was HTTP/1.0 or not kept-alive HTTP/1.1 If mod_proxy does now support HTTP/1.1 persistent connections, then that is very good news as it is a much better way to forward requests (use the protocol rather than invent a new one!). cheers Larry Sanderson wrote: > These are consistant with our results. We use mod_proxy and mod_rewrite in > production becaus it has given us a consistent performance edge over the > alternatives (mod_jk, no apache, etc...). Unfortunaty, last I checked, Tux > does not support ssl, so that was not an option for us. > > -Larry > > >>As of Apache 1.3.23 I think, Apache supports HTTP/1.1 compliance in it's >>mod_proxy mechanism, meaning it can take advantage of persistent >>connections. That goes for the 2.x series of Apache as well. >> >>Using Apache 1.3.26, JBoss 2.4.4 and several different JSP/Servlet engines >>(Tomcat 3.2.4, Jetty 3.0,3.1, and Resin 2.0.5) I performed many load tests >>using LoadRunner against the above configurations. However, for each >>scenario, I tested once using mod_jk w/ ajp13 connector and a second time >>using mod_rewrite and mod_proxy passing off to the http listener of > > whatever > >>jsp/servlet engine that was running. In _every_ example, the use of >>mod_rewrite and mod_proxy together improved performance over using >>mod_jk/ajp13. And this is in an application that uses Struts heavily. I > > am > >>currently setting up a configuration with Tomcat 4.0.3 so I can try > > testing > >>with mod_webapp and see how it performs. >> >>I then found even better performance on Linux, by using the TUX kernel web >>server in place of Apache and passing on all non-static requests on to the >>specific jsp/servlet container being used at the time. >> >>As a result, I would have to say that my testing reveals that using the >>latest Apaches with mod_proxy will out perform the mod_jk scenarios. >> >>Thanks, >>Mike >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) >>Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:48:32 -0500 >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>This link points to an area that really applies to Apache2 and mod_jk2 (or >>proxy which has disadvantages). I was under the impression it (Jetty) > > would > >>work with mod_jk and Apache 1.3. >> >>J. Michael Savage >>Datastream Development >> >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>(800) 955-6775 x7646 >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old >>cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! >>https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 >>_______________________________________________ >>JBoss-user mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user >> > -- Greg Wilkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462 Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
