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 were a bit sparse as of yet.
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.
mod_proxy_ajp is only in Apache 2.2 (and the 2.1 development stream
leading to 2.2) and 2.2 was just released, so obviously it is going to
fairly little information about it as of yet.
mod_jk2 never became stable. mod_jk is the thing for Apache 2.0, is
well documented, and works fine.
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.
The other major reason for using mod_jk or mod_proxy_ajp is load
balancing from Apache over several Tomcats.
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
