AFAIK mod_proxy performs worse than mod_jk.

Just my 2 cents.

Kerem 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Georges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:58 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Cc: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mod_jk performance
> 
> Marc
> 
> If the performance of your app is not acceptable using mod_jk 
> , you could try other alternatives and still keep apache in 
> front to serve static content and use other modules.
> You can use apache mod_proxy to forward request on 8080 [or 
> whatever your run tomcat on] to tomcat without going through 
> mod_jk There are pros and cons to take this approach, but it 
> may suffice in your case.
> 
> Hope it helps.
> 
> Bruno Georges
> 
> Glencore International AG
> Tel. +41 41 709 3204
> Fax +41 41 709 3000
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                      
>                       "marc ratun"                            
>                                                               
>                      
>                       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]         To:      
> tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org                                
>                            
>                       ail.com>                 cc:            
>                                                               
>                      
>                                                Subject: 
> mod_jk performance                                            
>                            
>                       14.09.05 13:46                          
>                                                               
>                      
>                       Please respond   Distribute:            
>                                                               
>                      
>                       to "Tomcat Users Personal?              
>  |-------|                                                    
>                      
>                       List"                                   
>  | [ ] x |                                                    
>                      
>                                                               
>  |-------|                                                    
>                      
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                      
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just read an article about webapp benchmarks [1] and they 
> mentioned that
> apache+mod_jk+tomcat is about 30% slower than pure tomcat.
> 
> This is sad. Until now I believed that the performance 
> decrease with apache/mod_jk would be marginal.
> 
> Putting apache/mod_jk before tomcat is very nice. I don't 
> want to miss it because it is a good way to integrate other modules.
> 
> Is there any way to speed up apache/tomcat cooperation?
> 
> 
> Marc
> 
> [1] (german only) http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2005/10/124/
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEGAL DISCLAIMER. The contents of this e-mail and any 
> attachments are strictly confidential and they may not be 
> used or disclosed by someone who is not a named recipient.
> If you have received this email in error please notify the 
> sender by replying to this email inserting the word 
> "misdirected" as the message and delete this e-mail from your system.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Reply via email to