tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dov Rosenberg <>
Subject Re: AW: Search engine friendly URLs
Date Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:53:16 GMT
When I suggested using Apache I implied that Apache would be on a separate
physical server. If possible even dynamic content can have static images
that can be served up using Apache. Our application tracks references to the
dynamic images that are stored in an application managed directory structure
on the filesystem. The only thing Tomcat needs to do is generate the HTML
pages, the web server handles all of the media requests.

Otherwise your Tomcat instance is handling all of the requests thru a single
network interface (unless you have multiple NICs and Ips) which will cause a
significant issue under load and makes your application much harder to scale
in a data center.

Tomcat may be "nearly" as fast as Apache at serving images, but why burden
it doing twice the work. I think the whole mod_jk thing is very poorly
implemented. I haven't tried mod_jk2 - hopefully it is more efficient and
easier to implement.

On 10/3/04 11:18 AM, "Steffen Heil" <> wrote:

> Hi
>> If you want to be able to scale your application, you need to be able to
> move the static image handling out of tomcat to a separate web server. Using
> Tomcat to handle both application chores and web serving chores will limit
> the overall scalability of your system.
> I strongly disagree.
> Tomcat is nearly as fast as apache in serving images.
> So, yes, you can save a little time using apache, BUT remeber that the
> apache slows tomcat down. You need cpu-cycles for apache, for mod_jk and
> additionally for tomcat. Those cycles for apache and mod_jk are not
> nessesary, since tomcat can work standalone.
> So the question comes down to decide wether the overhead of handling apache
> and mod_jk for dynamic content is smaller then the difference of apache and
> tomcat in serving images. I guess with current versions of tomcat the
> overhead to apache and mod_jk is even bigger.
> Hence, tomcat alone will be faster.
> (Please also consider, that static content will mostly be taken from the
> browsers cache, whereas dynamic content needs to be received from tomcat.
> That means that the time won by using apache for static content needs to be
> a magnitude higher than the overhead of mod_jk. That's simply not the case.)
> Tomcat cannot do rewriting, that is correct, but it does not need to:
> I use url such as:
> /content/pages/test.htm
> where content is mapped to my servlet.
> The parameter is simply the rest of the url.
> You could do:
> http://localhost/
> and parse the rest of the url to
> section = books
> and
> subsection = architecture
> Simply map to your servlet.
> Reagrds,
> Steffen

Dov Rosenberg
Conviveon Corporation

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message