I think there is not much question that the Apache server is far more efficient serving static html. Is there really any issue on that? If so, things sure have changed. I thought the comparison was like 5 to 1. Is that no longer true?
On 5/18/05, Jason Bainbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/18/05, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If all you're doing is serve static pages, both are equivalent. > > > However, if you ever need dynamic content, either client or server > > > side, for example a page whose content is extracted from a database, or > > > a form for which you need to record the values, you need some kind of > > > intelligence. > > > > > > For that job, Apache relies on cgi and php, while Tomcat relies on > > > Servlets and JSP, both based on Java. > > > > > > Unless you have a good reason to switch to Apache, you should stick to > > > Tomcat. > > > > Ah, okay. The only reason we were considering switching to Apache was > > to possibly improve the performance of our Java applet. > > However the Apache Web Server may well have better performance when > serving large files, I don't believe I have seen any benchmarks > dealing with large files only smaller ones that you typically see > included in a web page like images. I would recommend at least doing > some testing by serving your applet under Apache. > > Just out of curiosity what does your large applet do? From the sound > of it it was like 60mb, which is quite a large applet to say the > least... > > -- > Jason Bainbridge > http://kde.org - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Personal Site - http://jasonbainbridge.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
