Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-18 Thread Leon Rosenberg
On 3/18/06, Nikola Milutinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > 3. If you would like to do some load balancing (how does TC standalone stand > here?). No problems with standalone tomcat. Really nice :-) > Nix. Leon - To unsubsc

RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-18 Thread Nikola Milutinovic
--- "Caldarale, Charles R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Alex Jalali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance > > > > If you have lots of static html pages then apache is much better at > > handling them. >

Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread David Rees
On 3/17/06, Alex Jalali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although i do have this question about non-static pages. Which do you > think is faster? let say you have 1GB ram and 2 CPUs. running a) apache + > 1 tomcat or b) apache + 2 tomcat in cluster via mod_jk? would having 2 JVM > on the same server th

RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Mark Eggers
There are lots of reasons to run Apache in front of Tomcat, and lots of reasons not to. This just depends on your use cases and web site. At any rate, here's one way to find out in your case if the Apache --> ajp13 --> Tomcat process is your bottleneck. 1. Get jmeter at http://jakarta.apache.org

RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: Alex Jalali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance > > Maybe the problem is when I was testing static pages, it > wasn't tomcat as stand-alone vs. apache it was apache vs. > tomcat + connector + apache That was hardly a fai

RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Alex Jalali
erver that has two CPU's run faster or it wouldn't make any diffrence? do you know of any tests done for clusters >> From: Alex Jalali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance >> >> If you have lots of static html pages then apache

RE: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Caldarale, Charles R
> From: Alex Jalali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance > > If you have lots of static html pages then apache is much better at > handling them. Have you actually measured this on the current version of Tomcat, or are you just echoing what you&#x

Re: TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Alex Jalali
If you have lots of static html pages then apache is much better at handling them. For other dynamic content like .jsp tomcat has to handle the requests. So thats why you would have apache + the mod_jk connector. If all your files are jsp and you don't need static page serving or other features of

TomCat + mod_jk performance

2006-03-17 Thread Vanessa Campos
Hi, My server is a bit 'slow'. It takes me a while to receive my pages when I hit the site. How fast is tomcat when using apache + mod_jk? Is there any performance test I can apply on my server to check if it is tomcat or my badwidth? Thank you Vanessa Campos [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ 35381281 "E