Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
My reasons: - source has the fixes first...critical on production servers, especially for security fixes. With source, you don't wait for Red Hat to release something. A lag of several days can mean the difference between weathering a storm and spending the weekend scrolling through logs and compiling forensic evidence for lawyers. The most recent OpenSSH fix is a perfect example of this...all of my Red Hat servers were patched by 9 AM the morning after the fix by building from source...it was several days before Red Hat got around to releasing the RPM for the same thing. - source means you don't fight with everyone else in the world to download the RPM when RH releases it on the Red Hat network. Many organizations have policies that prohibit installing RPMs from any other source...a corporate security officer would be nuts to let admins install RPMs with doubtful pedigrees. Imagine someone setting up a "RPM mirror site" that has the RPM you need, only its their "special version". How would you know? Most people don't know how to check. - source means you put the files where you want them to be. Everyone has their own system, as does every company (or they should). With RPMs, the files go where the RPM maintainer wants to put them...this may or may not fit your environment...it rarely does on my systems. You can spend more time reconciling the differences (and dependencies) than you do just building from source. - source means you know EXACTLY what was done to your system, you are not relying on someone else...this is key if you are sleeping next to a pager every night. - source means you keep your installation tracking with the authoritative source. I spent almost an hour explaining to an auditor why my Apache's version numbers didn't match Red Hat's...the auditor felt that RH's version number was the "safest" version number and that any later versions released by Apache.org were "beta". His port scanner found a later version number and kicked out a red flag. I don't have an hour to hold someone's hand. RPMs are great. I use them for things I don't really want to spend the time to learn inside and out, like GNOME or whatever, typically desktop-level packages. Package maintenance systems are necessary for any environment with a multitude of systems. However, when it comes to publicly accessible web services (Apache, BIND, MTAs, etc), I build from source. Its not right or wrong, its just right for me. I think I got spoiled after administering a slew of *BSD systems for a couple of years...the ports tree is the shiznit. John Mike Millson wrote: I have not had any problems integrating tomcat w/ RH9 and Apache 2. Here is my write up on how to do this: http://www.meritonlinesystems.com/docs/apache_tomcat_redhat.html Granted, I'm not using mod_jk2, so maybe that is why I had no trouble. I have always heard it's better to compile Apache from source vs. using the rpms, but no one has ever quantified the advantages to doing this. Until someone does, and the advantages of compiling from source outweigh the advantages I've listed below for using the rpms, I still recommend using the rpms. There must be advantages to compiling Apache from source. Anyone want to be the advocate for this and explain why/when to compile from source? Thank you, Mike On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 12:09, Chong Yu Meng wrote: Hi Mike ! I guess the best way to test my theory is to try integrating Tomcat with Apache 2 yourself. There are real benefits for using RH's rpms, but if the integration takes too much effort, it may not be worth it. I haven't touched Tomcat for about 4 months now, but when I was working on my document for integrating Tomcat and Apache way back in May, I remember having considerable trouble with RH9's Apache 2, which led me to use Falsehope's rpms instead. Regards, pascal chong Mike Millson wrote: There are two compelling benefits to installing the RedHat rpms: 1) Updates and bug fixes can be installed automatically from the Red Hat Network (https://rhn.redhat.com/). 2) Startup and shutdown scripts are already configured and available. I would like to weigh these benefits against any specific disadvantages to using the RedHat rpms. I know, this is a tomcat list, but I think it's relevant. Thank you, Mike On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using RH9 with the Apache2 that comes with it. Recently I've installed Tomcat5 with mod_jk2 without too many problems (jakarta-tomcat-5.0.7.tar.gz and mod_jk2-ap20-2.0.1-1jpp.i386.rpm). Proper configuration of workers2.properties and jk2.properties is essential I believe. I got a few sites running as virtual hosts on Apache2 as well as on Tomcat5 and everything seems to be fine so far. http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-5/v5.0.7-alpha/bin/ http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/rpms/ -> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connector
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
mmillson> I have always heard it's better to compile Apache from
mmillson> source vs. using the rpms, but no one has ever quantified
mmillson> the advantages to doing this. Until someone does, and the
mmillson> advantages of compiling from source outweigh the advantages
mmillson> I've listed below for using the rpms, I still recommend
mmillson> using the rpms.
mmillson>
mmillson> There must be advantages to compiling Apache from
mmillson> source. Anyone want to be the advocate for this and explain
mmillson> why/when to compile from source?
The most compelling reason to compile your own server is to
incorporate local source-level modifications. Even if it's something
simple, like changing HARD_SERVER_LIMIT, or suexec settings.
Another reason would be to have more control over the installation
process. Suppose you had an arrangement like this
httpd -> apache-1.3.27
apache-1.3.24/
apache-1.3.26/
apache-1.3.28/
Each versioned directory is a separate ServerRoot, and "httpd" is a
symbolic link to the currently active one. To roll forward, repoint
the symlink, and restart the server. To back out an upgrade, repoint
the symlink, and restart the server. Changing the active version can
be done in a matter of seconds, and with very little disruption.
This sort of "symlink to active version" technique is common approach
for handling versioned installations, while maintaining a uniform path
for scripts, etc to use. This isn't specific to apache; you can the
approach with any piece of softare: bind, sendmail, ant, tomcat,
emacs, java, or whatever.
dthomas> I would also like to know some facts on this. I need to
dthomas> maintain many Linux boxes running Apache and Tomcat...having
dthomas> the ability to update Apache with a plain RPM from RedHat is
dthomas> a huge bonus.
When you build an apache with the standard ("Apache") layout, the
--prefix directory contains an entire server installation. The job
is then to put a copy of that directory tree on a each of the servers
that need it. There are tools like rdist(1) that are designed
specifically for this purpose. This isn't a bad write-up
http://www.benedikt-stockebrand.de/rdist-intro.html
The second edition of the Unix Systems Adminstrators Handbook
http://www.bookpool.com/.x/esf5tdpqim/sm/0130206016
had a chapter on file distribution. Hopefully that chapter made it
into the third edition. If so, it's also worth a read.
Given the choice of using an RPM vs. building your own, there are
advantages and disadvantages to either approach. Ultimately, it's a
matter of weighing them out and determining what works best in your
particular situation.
--
Steve
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
I would also like to know some facts on this. I need to maintain many Linux boxes running Apache and Tomcat...having the ability to update Apache with a plain RPM from RedHat is a huge bonus. Thanks, Dave Thomas Mike Millson wrote: I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? Thank you, Mike On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: Hi Dave, Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my Apache comes from Falsehope.com (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. Regards, pascal chong Dave Thomas wrote: We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat 3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few 'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest any docs or offer any info on this subject? Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? Thanks for any info, Dave Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
I have not had any problems integrating tomcat w/ RH9 and Apache 2. Here is my write up on how to do this: http://www.meritonlinesystems.com/docs/apache_tomcat_redhat.html Granted, I'm not using mod_jk2, so maybe that is why I had no trouble. I have always heard it's better to compile Apache from source vs. using the rpms, but no one has ever quantified the advantages to doing this. Until someone does, and the advantages of compiling from source outweigh the advantages I've listed below for using the rpms, I still recommend using the rpms. There must be advantages to compiling Apache from source. Anyone want to be the advocate for this and explain why/when to compile from source? Thank you, Mike On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 12:09, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > Hi Mike ! > > I guess the best way to test my theory is to try integrating Tomcat with > Apache 2 yourself. There are real benefits for using RH's rpms, but if > the integration takes too much effort, it may not be worth it. I haven't > touched Tomcat for about 4 months now, but when I was working on my > document for integrating Tomcat and Apache way back in May, I remember > having considerable trouble with RH9's Apache 2, which led me to use > Falsehope's rpms instead. > > Regards, > pascal chong > > > Mike Millson wrote: > > >There are two compelling benefits to installing the RedHat rpms: > >1) Updates and bug fixes can be installed automatically from the Red Hat > >Network (https://rhn.redhat.com/). > >2) Startup and shutdown scripts are already configured and available. > > > >I would like to weigh these benefits against any specific disadvantages > >to using the RedHat rpms. > > > >I know, this is a tomcat list, but I think it's relevant. > > > >Thank you, > >Mike > > > >On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >>I am using RH9 with the Apache2 that comes with it. Recently I've installed > >>Tomcat5 with mod_jk2 without too many problems (jakarta-tomcat-5.0.7.tar.gz and > >> mod_jk2-ap20-2.0.1-1jpp.i386.rpm). Proper configuration of workers2.properties > >>and jk2.properties is essential I believe. I got a few sites running as virtual > >>hosts on Apache2 as well as on Tomcat5 and everything seems to be fine so far. > >> > >>http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-5/v5.0.7-alpha/bin/ > >>http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/rpms/ > >>-> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/doc/ > >> > >>Cheers, > >>Bart > >> > >>Quoting Mike Millson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > >> > >>>I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that > >>>comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing > >>>this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the > >>>downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? > >>> > >>>Thank you, > >>>Mike > >>> > >>>On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi Dave, > > Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some > reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my > Apache comes from Falsehope.com > (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of > tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. > > Regards, > pascal chong > > > > > > > > - > 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: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
Hi Mike ! I guess the best way to test my theory is to try integrating Tomcat with Apache 2 yourself. There are real benefits for using RH's rpms, but if the integration takes too much effort, it may not be worth it. I haven't touched Tomcat for about 4 months now, but when I was working on my document for integrating Tomcat and Apache way back in May, I remember having considerable trouble with RH9's Apache 2, which led me to use Falsehope's rpms instead. Regards, pascal chong Mike Millson wrote: There are two compelling benefits to installing the RedHat rpms: 1) Updates and bug fixes can be installed automatically from the Red Hat Network (https://rhn.redhat.com/). 2) Startup and shutdown scripts are already configured and available. I would like to weigh these benefits against any specific disadvantages to using the RedHat rpms. I know, this is a tomcat list, but I think it's relevant. Thank you, Mike On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using RH9 with the Apache2 that comes with it. Recently I've installed Tomcat5 with mod_jk2 without too many problems (jakarta-tomcat-5.0.7.tar.gz and mod_jk2-ap20-2.0.1-1jpp.i386.rpm). Proper configuration of workers2.properties and jk2.properties is essential I believe. I got a few sites running as virtual hosts on Apache2 as well as on Tomcat5 and everything seems to be fine so far. http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-5/v5.0.7-alpha/bin/ http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/rpms/ -> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/doc/ Cheers, Bart Quoting Mike Millson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? Thank you, Mike On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: Hi Dave, Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my Apache comes from Falsehope.com (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. Regards, pascal chong - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
There are two compelling benefits to installing the RedHat rpms: 1) Updates and bug fixes can be installed automatically from the Red Hat Network (https://rhn.redhat.com/). 2) Startup and shutdown scripts are already configured and available. I would like to weigh these benefits against any specific disadvantages to using the RedHat rpms. I know, this is a tomcat list, but I think it's relevant. Thank you, Mike On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am using RH9 with the Apache2 that comes with it. Recently I've installed > Tomcat5 with mod_jk2 without too many problems (jakarta-tomcat-5.0.7.tar.gz and > mod_jk2-ap20-2.0.1-1jpp.i386.rpm). Proper configuration of workers2.properties > and jk2.properties is essential I believe. I got a few sites running as virtual > hosts on Apache2 as well as on Tomcat5 and everything seems to be fine so far. > > http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-5/v5.0.7-alpha/bin/ > http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/rpms/ > -> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/doc/ > > Cheers, > Bart > > Quoting Mike Millson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that > > comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing > > this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the > > downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? > > > > Thank you, > > Mike > > > > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some > > > reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my > > > Apache comes from Falsehope.com > > > (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of > > > tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. > > > > > > Regards, > > > pascal chong > > > > > > > > > Dave Thomas wrote: > > > > > > >We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat > > > >3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with > > > >Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few > > > >'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not > > > >apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest > > > >any docs or offer any info on this subject? > > > > > > > >Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? > > > > > > > >Thanks for any info, > > > >Dave Thomas > > > >[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] > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET - Forum on World Travel and Adventure - > > http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET/worldfacts > > http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET/worldnews > > > - > 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: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
I am using RH9 with the Apache2 that comes with it. Recently I've installed Tomcat5 with mod_jk2 without too many problems (jakarta-tomcat-5.0.7.tar.gz and mod_jk2-ap20-2.0.1-1jpp.i386.rpm). Proper configuration of workers2.properties and jk2.properties is essential I believe. I got a few sites running as virtual hosts on Apache2 as well as on Tomcat5 and everything seems to be fine so far. http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-5/v5.0.7-alpha/bin/ http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/rpms/ -> http://archive.apache.org/dist/jakarta/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.1/doc/ Cheers, Bart Quoting Mike Millson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that > comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing > this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the > downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? > > Thank you, > Mike > > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some > > reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my > > Apache comes from Falsehope.com > > (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of > > tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. > > > > Regards, > > pascal chong > > > > > > Dave Thomas wrote: > > > > >We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat > > >3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with > > >Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few > > >'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not > > >apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest > > >any docs or offer any info on this subject? > > > > > >Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? > > > > > >Thanks for any info, > > >Dave Thomas > > >[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] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET - Forum on World Travel and Adventure - http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET/worldfacts http://WWW.ADVENTUREFORUM.NET/worldnews - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
I have heard the claims before about not using the default Apache that comes w/ RH 9, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for not doing this. Do you have any specifics such as articles or facts that show the downside of using the default Apache that comes w/ RH? Thank you, Mike On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:54, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some > reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my > Apache comes from Falsehope.com > (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of > tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. > > Regards, > pascal chong > > > Dave Thomas wrote: > > >We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat > >3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with > >Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few > >'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not > >apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest > >any docs or offer any info on this subject? > > > >Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? > > > >Thanks for any info, > >Dave Thomas > >[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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
Hi Dave, Do NOT use the default Apache that comes with RH9 ! According to some reports, there are some serious bugs inside it. I'm using RH9, but my Apache comes from Falsehope.com (http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/). It takes a bit of tweaking, but you can get the Falsehope rpm to play nice with Tomcat. Regards, pascal chong Dave Thomas wrote: We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat 3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few 'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest any docs or offer any info on this subject? Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? Thanks for any info, Dave Thomas [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]
RH9's Apache 2 and Tomcat 4
We have an application that we have been suing Apache 1.3 with Tomcat 3.3 with for a while and I would like to test out using our app with Tomcat 4 and RedHats default install of Apache 2. I have found a few 'how tos' on the subject but they all seem to be a bit dated and do not apply to the current release of Tomcat and mod_jk2. Can anyone suggest any docs or offer any info on this subject? Also, how if the performance for Tomcat 4 vs Tomcat 3? Thanks for any info, Dave Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
