Has anyone had success compiling the native jk connectors from
jakarta-tomcat-connectors-4.0.4b2-src on a Win2K machine?
-Original Message-
From: Simon Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:58 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-Tomcat
I understand what you're trying to say.
Can you tell me the fundamental difference between "jk" and "jk2".
I just read on this list that in the current release of "mod_webapp" there is
an additional hit in performance for static pages as well since it has to go
to TC then to Apache for static
>
>
>>With a little planning before you develop your
>>applications,
>>you can have Tomcat serve dynamic content on one IP address while Apache
>>serves static content on another IP address.
>>
>
>What connector...jk, jk2 or warp???
>What are the advantages of using warp over jk/jk2 (besides loadb
I just did some similar benchmarking, though I didn't test with tomcat
standalone, since I need Apache, and don't have standalone configured.
I'm sure there are other factors, O/S, JDK, etc, but here's what I
found, using mod_webapp, with Tomcat 4.04b2 on Sun JDK1.4 and Apache
1.3.22 on RedHat
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 11:54 am, Pascal Forget wrote:
> Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> >Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
> >And what about mod_webapp?
>
> For starters, you could read http://www.ubeans.com/tomcat
>
> One question you might want to ask yourself is wether you REALLY
> need Apa
Anthony W. Marino wrote:
>Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
>And what about mod_webapp?
>
For starters, you could read http://www.ubeans.com/tomcat
One question you might want to ask yourself is wether you REALLY
need Apache forwarding requests to Tomcat. Doing so is MUCH slower
than havi
o: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-Tomcat Connector
>
> > >
> > >
> > > It isn't so. You can still serve static pages, but they'll come
> > > through Tomcat
It isn't so. There is no problem serving static content through apache
using mod webapp to server only servlets, jsp. The setup is different
than when using mod_jk, that's all.
Ken
Lance Smith wrote:
> Using: Apache 2.0.35 and Tomcat 4.0.3 on Red Hat 7.2.
>
> Say it isn't so: There is no way
visiting the jakarta site I´m none the wiser :-).
>
> bye Michael Delamere
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Simon Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 2:23
> >
> >
> > It isn't so. You can still serve static pages, but they'll come
> > through Tomcat and then apache, rather than being served straight from
> > apache. End result: you'll see a speed hit. This is what's being
> > fixed, as I understand it.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:00:59PM +00
---Original Message-
> From: Simon Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: April 24, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-Tomcat Connector
>
>
> It isn't so. You can still serve static pages, but they'll come
> through Tomcat an
In which version is this projected to be fixed?
-Original Message-
From: Simon Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: April 24, 2002 8:11 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-Tomcat Connector
It isn't so. You can still serve static pages, but they'll co
It isn't so. You can still serve static pages, but they'll come
through Tomcat and then apache, rather than being served straight from
apache. End result: you'll see a speed hit. This is what's being
fixed, as I understand it.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:00:59PM +, Lance Smith wrote:
> Using:
Using: Apache 2.0.35 and Tomcat 4.0.3 on Red Hat 7.2.
Say it isn't so: There is no way to serve static pages from Apache using
mod_webapp? Can anyone confirm/deny this?
Lance
> > The major difference between the two modules, other than this, is that
> > mod_jk allows static content to be serve
I guess, taking it a step further, why jk2 (AJP14) if mod_webapp is the new
generation?
Thanks,
Anthony
> Not too sure about ajp14, but from my experience, it seems best to use a
> version that most people are using, or have used in the past. My
> recommendation would be to use mod_jk and aj
Not too sure about ajp14, but from my experience, it seems best to use a
version that most people are using, or have used in the past. My
recommendation would be to use mod_jk and ajp13 if it is a production
environment and you want the least chance for error. Also, compile mod_jk
on your own, i
I've had problems compiling a mod_jk.so module. Including a failed effort of
"ant native".
I'll keep plugging away until I figure it out.
Anthony
> AFAIK, you have to compile that from source.
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:03:12AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > When you go the the coyote
AFAIK, you have to compile that from source.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:03:12AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> When you go the the coyote drop there are instructions on using it, however,
> where's the Apache specific part of the instructions and module???
>
> Anthony
Cheers,
Simon
--
Th
When you go the the coyote drop there are instructions on using it, however,
where's the Apache specific part of the instructions and module???
Anthony
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:04:17AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:31:44AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 April 2002 08:23 am, Simon Stewart wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:04:17AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> >
> > > Is warp in the
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 08:23 am, Simon Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:04:17AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > > Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
> > > > And what about mod_webapp?
> > >
> > > I ta
?
Unfortunately after visiting the jakarta site I´m none the wiser :-).
bye Michael Delamere
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:04:17AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
> > > And what about mod_webapp?
> >
> > I take it that this is mod_jk and mod_jk2? IME, mod_jk and Apache 2
> > do
sage -
> From: "Simon Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Which Apache-To-Tomcat Connector
>
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthon
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
> > And what about mod_webapp?
>
> I take it that this is mod_jk and mod_jk2? IME, mod_jk and Apache 2
> don't get along well at all[1]. The impression that I've gleaned from
> reading p
connector was faster, however I don´t have any
benchmark results to prove this.
bye Michael Delamere
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:51 AM
Sub
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> Any reason for using AJP14 over AJP13?
> And what about mod_webapp?
I take it that this is mod_jk and mod_jk2? IME, mod_jk and Apache 2
don't get along well at all[1]. The impression that I've gleaned from
reading past postings
I've recently done some benchmarking on mod_webapp and I wasn't too impressed. I am
using it anyway though until I can compare to something better.
The upshot was this. Apache+tomcat was taking 5 times as long to serve a request as
tomcat standalone was. Also, Apache+tomcat would choke on con
28 matches
Mail list logo
