On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 00:37 -0800, Ian Shafer wrote:
> What do I need to look out for in getting this to perform better? I
> tried the max=XXX configuration at the end of my ProxyPass line, but
> that didn't help. Any thoughts?
What about your Apache keepalivetimeout? Shorter timeout should fr
"Chris Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>* 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?
>
You can search the [EMAIL P
Chris Lear wrote:
* 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?
It should be in Apache 2.2's doc set, but it would not surprise me at
all if this
* 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 supporte
I have some vague recollection that performance of mod_proxy_ajp tested
just /slightly /better than mod_jk.
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 i
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.
e wrote:
Hi,
I'm happy to see Apache 2.2 has been released. I'm curious if any
