By static content, you mean HTML files probably, right? I read recently that thanks to the recently advanced JIT compilers that a typical JSP can be served nearly s quickly as a standard HTML file. That said, should Apache serving HTML really be "way, way, way faster" than Tomcat sreving JSPs? And why/how might this be different than Tomcat serving HTML?
Perhaps this (that JSPs are almost as fast as HTML now) was said in general but doesn't apply to all app servers? Do you know of any benchmarks on this or can anyone quantify just how much faster Apache is or shed some light on why? Oh and btw, does anyone know if its possible to cache page output via Tomcat? This also might increase performance on static content. Perhaps this affects that Tomcat/Apache performance gap? Thanks Neal -----Original Message----- From: micael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache Depends on if you have static content, neal. Apache is way, way, way faster, of course, if you have static content running. At 05:25 PM 9/6/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Alright, > >So there's no taboo here that I'm not aware of. It sounds like a lot of >people do run Tomcat with Apache but not all and its simply a matter of what >fits my needs best. So, there are no silver bullet issues (other than >posibly this roon daemon thing) which suggests running Tomcat standalone in >production is foolish, right? > >Thanks. >Neal > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Randy Secrist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:44 PM >To: Tomcat Users List >Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache > > >I have heard reports, (although never seen actual numbers or data) that >suggest that if you have a lot of static pages for a large site, standalone >Tomcat decreases in performace pretty quickly. That said - Apache has also >been tested and proven with static pages, and has a great system for adding >extentions. As such, many production environments run cgi, php, and other >scripting languages for their web pages. Apache's role as a fully >serviceable http server is much more broad than the http services Tomcat >connectors provide. Tomcat connectors CAN interface with Apache to give jsp >/ servlet container abilities to Apache. > >Usually, people run Apache + Tomcat so they can use multiple scripting >languages - since the entire world doesn't use java. While Tomcat does >support cgi (via servlet calls), jsp / servlet containers were not designed >with this explicitly designed as their main role - while Apache was. I have >also never heard of a servlet that imitates php...although someone who never >sleeps at night has probably implemented it. > >Randy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:24 PM >Subject: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache > > > > What do most people run for production and why? Tomcat standalone or >Tomcat > > with Apache? And for that matter, isn't the http server for Tomcat >Apache - > > or is it something else? > > > > John Turner mentioned the possible concern with running Tomcat as root. >Are > > there any other concerns? Performance? Security? > > > > Thanks. > > Neal > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
