> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I use tomcat exclusively behind apache. This is for > performance reasons both as a proxy for "slow" clients > (releasing relatively expensive tomcat > resources) and as a static content server. >
As said, it all depends on a particular use case. If the majority of your content is static, then Apache2 will probably scale better, but IMHO, those cases will tend to decrease, cause the Moore law is proven to be correct, so that prices for the processing resources are decreasing too. For any portal or similar type of web content delivery, the time spent on processing 'standard' http protocol tasks including the TCP/IP stack is insignificant compared to the time spent in the application itself. > We use apache to control our URL space and serve all sorts of > content from all sorts of servers. In many instances tomcat, > or jboss or any other app server does not have the control > over the URL/Request that apache gives us without allot of > custom coding. We use mod_rewrite, mod_proxy, php, mod_perl, > mod_some_auth_module. > Well, those kind of functionally are the one I wish to provide to the Tomcat. Again, the major advantage for a webserver in front of Tomcat nowadays is that this is probably the only way to intermix Java, PHP and Perl. If we have a direct support for the later two, then the advantage would become a bottleneck thought. > ps I still see an 80/20 rule of 80% static content, 20% > dynamic both in > traffic and war file content. Not to say the 20% does not > involve a lot of > processing to produce! > Even on a 80-20 scenario (the better measure would be CPU times), the TC alone would IMO give you performace increase, but the best way to test that is a plain old 'ab' :). MT. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
