* Jess Holle wrote (02/12/05 13:53): > I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested > just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
But where is the information on this? I joined this list a few days ago after Googling like crazy for information on the most sensible and supported way to connect apache to tomcat (or whether to drop it and just use the http connector). In the end, I'm using mod_jk, because I couldn't find *anything* helpful on the web about configuring or using mod_proxy_ajp, apart from some theoretical examples that tended to be incompatibile with one another. The only thing people seem to agree on is that mod_jk2 is no use, though that had the option of unix sockets, which I would have thought would be a good thing. I might revert to using the http connector. The reasons for not doing this are: 1) I want apache to do SSL, 2) I don't want to run tomcat as root, and using local port forwarding is a hassle, and 3) there's a bit more flexibility in the apache route. Chris > > Tim Funk wrote: > >> Performance (IIRC while reading on the mailing lists) is about the >> same. mod_proxy_ajp should be easier to configure and install since it >> comes bundled with apache and it should be much easier to install than >> jk. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
