On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Gerry Duhig wrote:
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:06:32 +0100
> From: Gerry Duhig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I'm using Tomcat, do I also need Apache
>
> Can I ask a supplementary question please?
>
> We have a couple of applications that are a few html and JSP pages and a
> couple of servlets. Packing the whole lot up in ear files and deploying
> under JBoss-Tomcat is really nice and simple. Obviously then we are not
> using Apache because Tomcat is serving up everything.
>
> Is there any point in taking the minimal HTML stuff outside this deployment
> so that Apache serves it? It would be a lot of work to move it out of the
> deployed files, and it is really only the front end to the JSPs and
> Servlets.
>
This sounds kind of silly, but here's the way I would decide this: Does
it currently run fast enough for you? If so, then it doesn't really
matter whether it would run faster being split up -- and you can go focus
your attention on implementing new stuff instead of changing old stuff.
On the other hand, if you are now (or might be in the future) in a
situation where performance is an issue, AND it looks like the problem is
performance in serving static files, then by all means look at the idea of
splitting them out.
One quick thing to look at (if you're using Tomcat 4 and have access
logging turned on) is to do a quick scan down the logs for requests to
those static resources. If you see lots of status 304 (not modified)
responses, that means the browser has that resource cached already, and it
wasn't actually sent again. For those requests, the performance of the
server on static resources does not matter -- because it wasn't sent
anyway. A request where the resource was actually downloaded will be a
status 200 instead.
> Gerry
>
Craig
