Peter Crowther wrote:
>
> 2009/11/24 TheGrailer <ken...@gmail.com>
>
>> Im pretty new to this but have 2 friends that help me out. Though one of
>> my
>> friends tells me to use Apache2 infront of Tomcat and the other one tells
>> me
>> it's unnecessary.
>>
>
> Finding out their reasoning - and the evidence each one has supporting
> their
> point of view - would be interesting.
>
> I'll try to explain my situation:
>> I've started a virtual Ubuntu 8.04 Longterm server and my goal is to have
>> atleast one serious site (made in Grails) and beeing a search engine
>> (think
>> youtube). So it's gonna be pretty much dynamic content and less static.
>> But
>> I will also start some sites just for fun that probobly won't have that
>> much
>> visitors but beeing abit more static content.
>> Im not saying my primary site will get much visitors but I want to build
>> the
>> environment as if it has.
>> Ps. I will probobly put a Varnish at the front sooner or later (for the
>> experience)
>>
>> So what do you all think? Is the Apache2 infront of the Tomcat 6 a waste
>> of
>> time or worth while?
>>
>> As always, it depends on your environment, wishes and skills.
>
> Tomcat has a reputation for being slow to serve static content. For 5.5+,
> that reputation is not deserved - you'll saturate your network connection
> long before you run out of CPU. So the "old" reason to put Apache httpd
> (hereafter just "httpd") in front of Tomcat no longer applies.
>
> If you add httpd, you also need to add a connection between httpd and
> Tomcat. More moving parts, more to maintain, higher CPU, use, higher
> memory
> use and higher latency on all requests that go to Tomcat.
>
> If you add httpd and don't configure the connection carefully, it's quite
> easy to expose the source of your JSPs and your webapp configuration -
> which
> may expose passwords, for example. So poor configuration of httpd+Tomcat
> can be a security risk.
>
> httpd can act as a very effective load-balancer for Tomcat if you don't
> want
> to use a hardware load-balancer.
>
> httpd has modules that are faster at serving non-Java dynamic content
> (PHP,
> perl etc) than Tomcat's CGI.
>
> httpd has mod_security, which may aid in site security if correctly
> configured (and can be a real PITA if not correctly configured).
>
> Pick the points from the above that apply to your site, and decide whether
> it's right for you. There is no Right or Wrong answer.
>
> - Peter
>
>
Thanks for the reply (same goes for you, Pid Ster).
The most compellig argument from the "Apache2 and Tomcat 6"-friend was
indeed the static content part. But also confing like virtual hosts (hard in
pure tomcat?) and modules.
I probobly won't use Apache2 as a load balancer since if I even get that far
I'll use Varnish or maybe even a VM just for load balancing.
So out of your list, I would say pure Tomcat is what suits me the best.
Keep the input comming! Really interesting to read. (Im guessing not just
for me).
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Tomcat-6-and-Apache2-VS-Tomcat-6-alone-tp26493078p26493798.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
