Tomcat standalone vs Tomcat & Apache (virtual hosts)

At the moment we have Tomcat 4.1.24 running as a standalone webserver (on W2K). The application we are running is 99% dynamic. We do need virtual hosts, or the equivalent in Tomcat. I was wondering what the best option would be. I believe there are two options. First we leave the situation as it is, and use the virtual hosts equivalent for Tomcat. The second is to install Apache and setup virtual hosts there.

I wonder what the best is, considering we barely serve static pages. What's the easiest to setup? If we install Apache, does that mean we have to run one instance of Tomcat for each virtual host? (I've heard that this is possible, but never have used it. Maybe I misunderstood.) What does this mean for server load?
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.


I have found in the past that if you are only using dynamic content, it is easier to maintain just one application. The extra ram Apache and the connector takes in my oppinion is not worth it.

We did not notice any performance changes at all with the loss of Apache.

Hope the helps ... in the long run, way less to manage, and the new Coyotee http connector works way better then Tomcat's old one...

grexxAuthor Commented:
Well at the moment we have only Tomcat installed. I thought it would be easier to have Apache next to it for handling virtual hosts. What you say is that you don't notice a performance change when using apache or not. So in terms of performance it's not really an issue as I understand you correctly.

This leaves the question open what's the easiest to configure. I'm beginning to understand Apache better, and I believe it is easier to configure than Tomcat, but I would like some feedback on this.
I think in the long run, it just comes down to what you prefer ... I find Apache a lot more intuitive, and plus, if you start hosting non java hosts, it will take less resources...

I was reading that Tomcat had issues with many vhosts ...  but that is probably fixed in the latest version....

Do what is the easiest for you, and your team.



Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Web Servers

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.