Re: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice
> From: "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:31 AM > Subject: RE: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice > Great! I'd love to see a HOWTO for load-balancing Tomcat instances across > multiple hosts without spending any money for a dedicated hardware solution > and doesn't use another software product besides Tomcat. Got a link for > one? Yes! Hear Hear! "Me Too" For whatever reason, there is a complete dearth of information on "open" solutions to generic load balancing. The hardware involved is NOT cheap (hell, it's not even "reasonable"). Apache's mod_proxy can "kinda sorta maybe almost" do it, but you lose session affinity and other "nice" things. Regards, Will Hartung ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice
Great! I'd love to see a HOWTO for load-balancing Tomcat instances across multiple hosts without spending any money for a dedicated hardware solution and doesn't use another software product besides Tomcat. Got a link for one? Newbies on this list are FREQUENTLY told that Apache is NOT required, and that in many cases Tomcat alone is sufficient. A search of the archives will validate this. My point was simply that "good practice" is relative. What works for you may not work for someone else, for various reasons. The reverse is also true. Implying that somebody who doesn't do exactly what you do is not doing the best they can do, or is not using the optimal solution, is rude. Feel free to contact me off the list if you're interested in debating. John > -Original Message- > From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice > > > No need to use big words. > > I was just giving you good practice, vs no so good practice. > > I take it you disagree. You can load balance Tomcat just fine. > > IMO: It's a good practice to try to avoid using Apache. > Mostly newbies > think that this is required. I am just saying, this is not > required or > possibly good. > > It makes operations and development easier not to have Apache, and my > clients have removed it to great sucess. Take it into consideration a > word to the wise. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg > 85780.html > > > .V > > > > Please don't troll the list. There are all sorts of > reasons besides "need > > CGI" to use Apache. I can think of one right now (load > balancing) that > > would pretty much make using Apache mandatory in many installations. > > > > Instead of bashing people for the software they choose to > use, a more > > helpful response might be to help them use it easily. > > > > John > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice > > > > > > Lot's of Apache to Tomcat questions. > > In the past, (Hardware sales) people would say you need a > html server > > (Apache) and a jsp server (Tomcat). > > > > Now Tomcat can server HTML pages very fast and can do SSL, etc. > > > > There is no reason to maintain and configure in operations > > communications between the two. > > > > Recomendation: It is *a good practice to deprecate Apache!, and use > > Tomcat* (or other J2EE, such as Resin) as your only > server, SSL and > > HTML, etc. > > The speed is just fine. > > > > > > There are only a few exceptions, such as you need CGI, but > you can save > > money, time now, but de-instaling Apache and put Tomcat on > port 88 and 443. > > > > > > .V > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice
I disagree. In my opinion you should play to the applications strengths, and serving static content is NOT Tomcat's strength. When you throw in load balancing and the ability to dynamically add and subtract Tomcat nodes out of your pool by adjusting the Apache's on the front-end, the benefits become obvious. Setting up Mod_Jk is very easy, so the complications you allude to in my opinion, are not an issue. Mod_Jk2 on the other hand is a whole different ball game ... :) Dennis -Original Message- From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice No need to use big words. I was just giving you good practice, vs no so good practice. I take it you disagree. You can load balance Tomcat just fine. IMO: It's a good practice to try to avoid using Apache. Mostly newbies think that this is required. I am just saying, this is not required or possibly good. It makes operations and development easier not to have Apache, and my clients have removed it to great sucess. Take it into consideration a word to the wise. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg85780.html .V > Please don't troll the list. There are all sorts of reasons besides "need > CGI" to use Apache. I can think of one right now (load balancing) that > would pretty much make using Apache mandatory in many installations. > > Instead of bashing people for the software they choose to use, a more > helpful response might be to help them use it easily. > > John > > -Original Message- > From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice > > > Lot's of Apache to Tomcat questions. > In the past, (Hardware sales) people would say you need a html server > (Apache) and a jsp server (Tomcat). > > Now Tomcat can server HTML pages very fast and can do SSL, etc. > > There is no reason to maintain and configure in operations > communications between the two. > > Recomendation: It is *a good practice to deprecate Apache!, and use > Tomcat* (or other J2EE, such as Resin) as your only server, SSL and > HTML, etc. > The speed is just fine. > > > There are only a few exceptions, such as you need CGI, but you can save > money, time now, but de-instaling Apache and put Tomcat on port 88 and 443. > > > .V > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice
No need to use big words. I was just giving you good practice, vs no so good practice. I take it you disagree. You can load balance Tomcat just fine. IMO: It's a good practice to try to avoid using Apache. Mostly newbies think that this is required. I am just saying, this is not required or possibly good. It makes operations and development easier not to have Apache, and my clients have removed it to great sucess. Take it into consideration a word to the wise. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg85780.html .V Please don't troll the list. There are all sorts of reasons besides "need CGI" to use Apache. I can think of one right now (load balancing) that would pretty much make using Apache mandatory in many installations. Instead of bashing people for the software they choose to use, a more helpful response might be to help them use it easily. John -Original Message- From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice Lot's of Apache to Tomcat questions. In the past, (Hardware sales) people would say you need a html server (Apache) and a jsp server (Tomcat). Now Tomcat can server HTML pages very fast and can do SSL, etc. There is no reason to maintain and configure in operations communications between the two. Recomendation: It is *a good practice to deprecate Apache!, and use Tomcat* (or other J2EE, such as Resin) as your only server, SSL and HTML, etc. The speed is just fine. There are only a few exceptions, such as you need CGI, but you can save money, time now, but de-instaling Apache and put Tomcat on port 88 and 443. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice
Please don't troll the list. There are all sorts of reasons besides "need CGI" to use Apache. I can think of one right now (load balancing) that would pretty much make using Apache mandatory in many installations. Instead of bashing people for the software they choose to use, a more helpful response might be to help them use it easily. John -Original Message- From: Vic Cekvenich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Apache and Tomcat: a bad practice Lot's of Apache to Tomcat questions. In the past, (Hardware sales) people would say you need a html server (Apache) and a jsp server (Tomcat). Now Tomcat can server HTML pages very fast and can do SSL, etc. There is no reason to maintain and configure in operations communications between the two. Recomendation: It is *a good practice to deprecate Apache!, and use Tomcat* (or other J2EE, such as Resin) as your only server, SSL and HTML, etc. The speed is just fine. There are only a few exceptions, such as you need CGI, but you can save money, time now, but de-instaling Apache and put Tomcat on port 88 and 443. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
