Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>Craig, be real... Tomcat, despite the beautiful design we have >>>for Catalina, >>>and we have to give you KUDOS for that, is not _yet_ ready to >>>be used in >>>production... It simply doesn't work, it doesn't deliver the same >>>performance and reliability that (for example) ServletExec does (just >>>because we use it on our main production server). >> >>We're using Tomcat in production, many tomcat instance by OS/400, >>and they works great. We didn't have 1 Million pages by days but >>have about 5000/10000 servlets requests by days, all the static >>contents being handled by Apache 1.3/2.0 servers (which are perfectly >>tuned and stable for that task), and that's why I'd like so much mod_jk >>since you could have all /APP handled by Apache HTTPD and /APP/*.jsp >>and /APP/servlet/* by tomcat via mod_jk, I've the best of both world, >>Apache HTTPD for static/php and Tomcat for Servlets/JSP. > > > Multiply that number (10k servlet requests per day) by 100 (one hundred), > and then you'll end up with a rough number of _servlet_ requests we're > serving each single day... Multiply again by 10 and that's what we're going > to end up by the end of the year... > > And of course, all static content doesn't even try to get into the VM... > > >>>Tomcat might meet some needs of this community, and please don't preach >>>about the "Apache culture", because facts might contradict >>>you. That's why >>>I'm spending much more time in the APR and HTTPD projects, >>>where features >>>are not the key, reliability, scalability, performance are. I >>>just know that >>>HTTPD works for 58% of the internet. I'm not sure that Tomcat >>>can even be >>>suited for a 10% of those... >> >>Tomcat SHOULD be suited for reliability, scalabitity and performance, >>and that's why I found Tomcat 5.0 proposal so important. > > > Craig said the opposite... > > >>1) A smallest core, will make it faster, easiest to understand and >> more reliable. >> >>2) That's really a share of experience from TC 3.3 and 4.x teams, >> and we should avoid here mistake from the past and use the best >> of both tomcat implementations >> >>3) If we could have TC 5.0 avoid duplicate decoding and handling of >> HTTP stuff, which is allready done by Apache 1.3/2.0/IIS, we'll save >> cycles, profits from HTTPD speed, quality and stability and may be >> we could hope to reach the quality standard awaited from an Apache >> Project. > > > Good... Prove it to me. Come up with a proposal of some friggin' sort...
That's just the proposal that I have put up (smaller core - Coyote -, closer from the HTTP server semantics). > FWIW even 4.2.x doesn't address any of my concerns, and it's not even out > working yet... Talking about 5.0 is a little bit "premature" maybe? There is no 4.2 planned, it was an analogy. > But that's my vision... The vision of an old fart who has been around for > quite long and is more concerned with numbers than whether we support JMX or > not... And there we go again with the usual rant, with the added sentiment that you'll get on going without even reading our replies. I think we got the point now :) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
