Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
Thomas, Jetty has an AJP13 listener that works with mod_jk and mod_jk2. The contributed documentation is mostly about apache2 and mod_jk2, so I'll have a look at improving this soon. But the normal mod_jk documentation applies to when configuring for apache with Jetty. Note that the all the current 4.1.0RCx releases of Jetty and the recent releases of JBoss contain a bug in the AJP13 listener. Requests are initially handled correctly, but then an error in recycling responses eventually results in garbled responses. This is fixed in Jetty CVS, will be in 4.1.0RC5 and will soon propagate to JBoss. regards On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 04:48, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: 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. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Jules Gosnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/doc/JettyWithApache.html I believe there is a fix for the AJP13Listener that has just gone into Jetty CVS. If you have any problems, let me know and I will mail you a build of this. Jules Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: I have a few things running on Apache already, so I need to host my J2EE sites through apache. I am looking to find how to configure JBoss 3.0.2 and either Tomcat or Jetty to run with Apache (1.3, not 2.0 -- I have built mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3). I am quite familiar with Tomcat, but I am new to JBoss and Jetty. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Tom Veldhouse --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
Thanks for the heads up about the AJP13 problem. I tried to use the Tomcat documentation to set it up, but I was unable to find the workers.properties file that was needed to setup my httpd.conf to look for my webapps. Is there an equivalent? Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:06 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) Thomas, Jetty has an AJP13 listener that works with mod_jk and mod_jk2. The contributed documentation is mostly about apache2 and mod_jk2, so I'll have a look at improving this soon. But the normal mod_jk documentation applies to when configuring for apache with Jetty. Note that the all the current 4.1.0RCx releases of Jetty and the recent releases of JBoss contain a bug in the AJP13 listener. Requests are initially handled correctly, but then an error in recycling responses eventually results in garbled responses. This is fixed in Jetty CVS, will be in 4.1.0RC5 and will soon propagate to JBoss. regards --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
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=sourceforge1refcode1=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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
mod_proxy definitely supports HTTP/1.1 (see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html). Does this imply that it also supports keep-alives? Also, with mod_rewrite, we have configured apache to serve up static content even within password-protected portions of the web-app. With mod_jk, it always does authentication checks. I'm not sure how much performance that buys us, but it is something. Another config that may affect these numbers: the default apache ssl config includes the following: SetEnvIf User-Agent .*MSIE.* \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 This forces all access from MS IE via https to downgrade to http/1.0. I have played around with this, and sure enough, without this, IE periodically shows blank pages while browsing secure pages. This configuration was in place for both mod_jk and mod_proxy tests. Regardless, the numbers we have obtained speak very clearly to us. Please respond if you find that your benchmarks show something else - I would love to make my site go faster! In the words of Mr. Schaefer: Have Fun! -Larry 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=sourceforge1refcode1=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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
It only support HTTP/1.1 in Apache 2.0. This module was experimental in Apache 1.1.x. Improvements and bugfixes were made in Apache v1.2.x and Apache v1.3.x, then the module underwent a major overhaul for Apache v2.0. The protocol support was upgraded to HTTP/1.1, and filter support was enabled. Which leads me right back to where I started. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Larry Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) mod_proxy definitely supports HTTP/1.1 (see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html). Does this imply that it also supports keep-alives? Also, with mod_rewrite, we have configured apache to serve up static content even within password-protected portions of the web-app. With mod_jk, it always does authentication checks. I'm not sure how much performance that buys us, but it is something. Another config that may affect these numbers: the default apache ssl config includes the following: SetEnvIf User-Agent .*MSIE.* \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 This forces all access from MS IE via https to downgrade to http/1.0. I have played around with this, and sure enough, without this, IE periodically shows blank pages while browsing secure pages. This configuration was in place for both mod_jk and mod_proxy tests. Regardless, the numbers we have obtained speak very clearly to us. Please respond if you find that your benchmarks show something else - I would love to make my site go faster! In the words of Mr. Schaefer: Have Fun! -Larry 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
Actually, on inspecting the documentation of Apache 1.3, you are correct (please ignore my last email). This module implements a proxy/cache for Apache. It implements proxying capability for FTP, CONNECT (for SSL), HTTP/0.9, HTTP/1.0, and (as of Apache 1.3.23) HTTP/1.1. The module can be configured to connect to other proxy modules for these and other protocols. This module was experimental in Apache 1.1.x. As of Apache 1.2, mod_proxy stability is greatly improved. Warning: Do not enable proxying with ProxyRequests until you have secured your server. Open proxy servers are dangerous both to your network and to the Internet at large. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Larry Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) mod_proxy definitely supports HTTP/1.1 (see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html). Does this imply that it also supports keep-alives? Also, with mod_rewrite, we have configured apache to serve up static content even within password-protected portions of the web-app. With mod_jk, it always does authentication checks. I'm not sure how much performance that buys us, but it is something. Another config that may affect these numbers: the default apache ssl config includes the following: SetEnvIf User-Agent .*MSIE.* \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 This forces all access from MS IE via https to downgrade to http/1.0. I have played around with this, and sure enough, without this, IE periodically shows blank pages while browsing secure pages. This configuration was in place for both mod_jk and mod_proxy tests. Regardless, the numbers we have obtained speak very clearly to us. Please respond if you find that your benchmarks show something else - I would love to make my site go faster! In the words of Mr. Schaefer: Have Fun! -Larry 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
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
I think you will find that in 1.3 is uses non-persistent HTTP/1.1 Well at least it did a few months ago when I got ganged up on and brow beaten into implementing AJP13 for Jetty/JBoss. But it does work. cheers Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: Actually, on inspecting the documentation of Apache 1.3, you are correct (please ignore my last email). This module implements a proxy/cache for Apache. It implements proxying capability for FTP, CONNECT (for SSL), HTTP/0.9, HTTP/1.0, and (as of Apache 1.3.23) HTTP/1.1. The module can be configured to connect to other proxy modules for these and other protocols. This module was experimental in Apache 1.1.x. As of Apache 1.2, mod_proxy stability is greatly improved. Warning: Do not enable proxying with ProxyRequests until you have secured your server. Open proxy servers are dangerous both to your network and to the Internet at large. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Larry Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) mod_proxy definitely supports HTTP/1.1 (see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_proxy.html). Does this imply that it also supports keep-alives? Also, with mod_rewrite, we have configured apache to serve up static content even within password-protected portions of the web-app. With mod_jk, it always does authentication checks. I'm not sure how much performance that buys us, but it is something. Another config that may affect these numbers: the default apache ssl config includes the following: SetEnvIf User-Agent .*MSIE.* \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 This forces all access from MS IE via https to downgrade to http/1.0. I have played around with this, and sure enough, without this, IE periodically shows blank pages while browsing secure pages. This configuration was in place for both mod_jk and mod_proxy tests. Regardless, the numbers we have obtained speak very clearly to us. Please respond if you find that your benchmarks show something else - I would love to make my site go faster! In the words of Mr. Schaefer: Have Fun! -Larry 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
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
Call my results suspect if you will, I was very surpised myself as the data started to come back, showing that mod_proxy was performing better than mod_jk. I couldn't believe it at first, so each load test scenario was repeated...same results each time. And one detail that I overlooked in my last post was that mod_rewrite was running under both scenarios...whether mod_jk or mod_proxy was being used, mod_rewrite was serving up all static files. So mod_jk wasn't even having to deal with static files also...strictly dynamic content only. For each test, I re-imported our base test schema. Apache was the same installation, JBoss was the same installation. I simply added different config directories for the different jsp/servlet containers I tested with and either setup Apache to use mod_jk or mod_proxy or mod_caucho. In all tests involving mod_jk versus mod_proxy, mod_proxy performed better...period. I am only relaying the results that I have put together on an application that I am working on (which I indicated earlier makes heavy use of Struts,tags,etc.) Granted you mileage may vary...but I disagree that my results can be casually dismissed as suspect. Especially when another user agrees that he has observed the same behavior. Thank you for your time, Mike - Original Message - Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:29:12 +0100 From: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Mort Bay Consulting To: Larry Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
Greg Wilkins wrote: Thomas, Jetty has an AJP13 listener that works with mod_jk and mod_jk2. The contributed documentation is mostly about apache2 and mod_jk2, so I'll have a look at improving this soon. But the normal mod_jk documentation applies to when configuring for apache with Jetty. Note that the all the current 4.1.0RCx releases of Jetty and the recent releases of JBoss contain a bug in the AJP13 listener. Requests are initially handled correctly, but then an error in recycling responses eventually results in garbled responses. This is fixed in Jetty CVS, will be in 4.1.0RC5 and will soon propagate to JBoss. It's in Branch_3_2 now. Jules regards On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 04:48, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: 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. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Jules Gosnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/doc/JettyWithApache.html I believe there is a fix for the AJP13Listener that has just gone into Jetty CVS. If you have any problems, let me know and I will mail you a build of this. Jules Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: I have a few things running on Apache already, so I need to host my J2EE sites through apache. I am looking to find how to configure JBoss 3.0.2 and either Tomcat or Jetty to run with Apache (1.3, not 2.0 -- I have built mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3). I am quite familiar with Tomcat, but I am new to JBoss and Jetty. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Tom Veldhouse --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
I was looking for it in the latest JBoss 3.0.2, which comes with Jetty, not Tomcat. Still, as it is supposed to work with AJP3, I expected to find something similar. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) You don't mention which versions you are using. In Tomcat 3.2.x, workers.properties is in the conf directory. I'm guessing it is probably still the same in later versions, though I haven't checked. - Original Message - From: Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) Thanks for the heads up about the AJP13 problem. I tried to use the Tomcat documentation to set it up, but I was unable to find the workers.properties file that was needed to setup my httpd.conf to look for my webapps. Is there an equivalent? Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:06 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) Thomas, Jetty has an AJP13 listener that works with mod_jk and mod_jk2. The contributed documentation is mostly about apache2 and mod_jk2, so I'll have a look at improving this soon. But the normal mod_jk documentation applies to when configuring for apache with Jetty. Note that the all the current 4.1.0RCx releases of Jetty and the recent releases of JBoss contain a bug in the AJP13 listener. Requests are initially handled correctly, but then an error in recycling responses eventually results in garbled responses. This is fixed in Jetty CVS, will be in 4.1.0RC5 and will soon propagate to JBoss. regards --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
[JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
I have a few things running on Apache already, so I need to host my J2EE sites through apache. I am looking to find how to configure JBoss 3.0.2 and either Tomcat or Jetty to run with Apache (1.3, not 2.0 -- I have built mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3). I am quite familiar with Tomcat, but I am new to JBoss and Jetty. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Tom Veldhouse --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/doc/JettyWithApache.html I believe there is a fix for the AJP13Listener that has just gone into Jetty CVS. If you have any problems, let me know and I will mail you a build of this. Jules Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: I have a few things running on Apache already, so I need to host my J2EE sites through apache. I am looking to find how to configure JBoss 3.0.2 and either Tomcat or Jetty to run with Apache (1.3, not 2.0 -- I have built mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3). I am quite familiar with Tomcat, but I am new to JBoss and Jetty. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Tom Veldhouse --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty)
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. Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: Jules Gosnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Apache 1.3 and JBOSS 3.0.2 (w/tomcat or w/jetty) http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/doc/JettyWithApache.html I believe there is a fix for the AJP13Listener that has just gone into Jetty CVS. If you have any problems, let me know and I will mail you a build of this. Jules Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: I have a few things running on Apache already, so I need to host my J2EE sites through apache. I am looking to find how to configure JBoss 3.0.2 and either Tomcat or Jetty to run with Apache (1.3, not 2.0 -- I have built mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3). I am quite familiar with Tomcat, but I am new to JBoss and Jetty. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Tom Veldhouse --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- 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=sourceforge1refcode1=vs3390 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
