ansaurus

Question

apache to tomcat: mod_jk vs mod_proxy

Answer 1

A:

mod_proxy is the old way, already.

What you really should use is nginx http://nginx.net/

Even then, my mod_accel would beat up your mod_proxy.

alamar 2009-07-04 10:18:13

Answer 2

+4 A:

If you wish to stay in Apache land, you can also try the newer mod_proxy_ajp, which uses the AJP protocol to communicate with Tomcat instead of plain old HTTP, but which leverages mod_proxy to do the work.

Vinko Vrsalovic 2009-07-04 10:27:27

Thanks. But do you know what does the proxy_ajp would offer more than jk?

cherouvim 2009-07-04 10:37:19

Yes, all the controls and (relatively) ease of configuration of mod_proxy, with the speed benefits of the AJP protocol (instead of using HTTP)

Vinko Vrsalovic 2009-07-04 11:19:29

AJP uses a binary format so in theory, it's suppose to provide better performance. I've never performance tested AJP vs HTTP proxying though.

Taylor Leese 2009-08-28 07:20:29

Answer 3

+6 A:

A pros/cons comparison for those modules exists on http://blog.jboss.org/

mod_proxy

* Pros:
      o No need for a separate module compilation and maintenance. mod_proxy,
        mod_proxy_http, mod_proxy_ajp and mod_proxy_balancer comes as part of 
        standard Apache 2.2+ distribution
      o Ability to use http https or AJP protocols, even within the same 
        balancer.
* Cons:
      o mod_proxy_ajp does not support large 8K+ packet sizes.
      o Basic load balancer
      o Does not support Domain model clustering

mod_jk

* Pros:
      o Advanced load balancer
      o Advanced node failure detection
      o Support for large AJP packet sizes
* Cons:
      o Need to build and maintain a separate module

cherouvim 2009-07-06 18:27:02

Answer 4

+1 A:

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

apache to tomcat: mod_jk vs mod_proxy

related questions