On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote: >> From: Caldarale, Charles R >> Subject: RE: Optimal Settings to use Tomcat as a HTTP File Server > >> > We plan to use tomcat to let users download static content >> > ( media, executables etc.. ). > >> As much as I like Tomcat, I have to think it might be more >> appropriate to use Apache httpd rather than Tomcat for pure >> static content. > > I have to qualify my statement: if the *only* thing you're using Tomcat for > is delivering static content, then httpd would be better. If you have other > reasons to use Tomcat (e.g., running servlets or JSPs), then by all means use > it as your static content server as well. You will generally see better > performance overall by not having two servers in the mix forced to > communicate with each other. >
Having one application serve static content, and having other applications serve other content (accept http requests, perform some processing, and send back responses, for e.g.), is actually a widely accepted and tested mechanism of using various stacks for various tasks. Given that we have binary communication between httpd and tomcat, and that this allows for Tomcat to be installed and used in all manner of ways (dedicated instances for specific web apps, or load balanced instances, for e.g.), I don't think "forced" is the right term at all. In fact, the vast majority of websites out there specifically stick in proxies and such in front of tomcat for SSL termination, load balancing, and static content serving. -- Sriram --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
