> -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Barker > Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 4:09 AM > To: users@tomcat.apache.org > Subject: Re: mod_jk versus mod_proxy under load ? > > mod_proxy_http is almost always slower than a properly > configured mod_jk (due to the lack of persistant > connections). The work is to get a 'properly configured mod_jk' ;-). > > Personally, I like mod_proxy_ajp, just for the integrated > configuration options. The speed should be comperable to > mod_jk, but I confess that I haven't actually run benchmarks on it. > > As always, the only benchmark that counts it the one that you > run :). This sort of thing depends on what your app really > does, as well as the static/dynamic content ratio. And, > except in very few cases, you will get the best speed with a > Tomcat stand-alone.
A while back when I first got my configuration started I was advised to use Tomcat (through mod_jk2) for the servlet and Apache for serving static files - it would be faster. Is this still the case? Would it be faster to just get rid of Apache and mod_jk2, and have Tomcat serve everything? What does everyone think? Best, Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
