I'm installing a new instance of geoserver (v 2.17.2) and in the install documentation it has the option to install geoserver by itself, or as an applet under tomcat.
Both options look simple enough, but I am wondering if there is any performance benefit by running with tomcat, or if it will run faster without the additional layer.
Has anyone tested these install options to see if there is any performance benefit to either install option?
--
Thanks,
James "Zeke" Dehnert
Linux System Administrator
Aechelon Technologies
james.dehnert#aechelon.com
Related
I am trying to install Spark 1.3.1 in an offline clusters (No Internet at all, only Lan). However, I don't know how to build it from source code since either via maven or sbt requires network connection. Can someone offer some help or possible solutions?
Thanks.
A simply (albiet somewhat hacky) solution would be to build it on a machine with internet access and then copy all of the items in ~/.ivy2 over to the machine with only lan access so that it can access the cached items. Another, perhaps simpler, option would be to use a pre-built Spark is thats an acceptable solution.
I have two web servers, Windows machines running Apache.
One is a backup of the other, so if one fails the other can be used instead.
Does anyone know if it's possible to configure Apache so it displays a small banner/message on each page it serves to say that the user is running on the backup server?
I did find a 3rd party module (mod-substitute-append http://code.google.com/p/mod-substitute-append/) that may have done what I wanted, but there appears to be no documentation for it, and when downloaded looks like it was written to be installed on a Linux machine.
Does anyone have any ideas I can try?
Apache 2.2 ships with mod_substitute: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_substitute.html
Apache 2.4 ships with mod_sed: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html
From the documentation, mod_sed does similar things to mod_substitute_append (which I have used, on Linux). It might be worth grabbing an Apache 2.4 Windows binary and seeing how you get on.
I'm trying to run a some .jnlp applications (games) on latest os-x. While doing so Java Web Start.app propose me to install Java Runtime Environment (jre_7u9). Should not that be already included in os-x, java 1.6? As an example I use Eclipse which is java-based and I have no problems running it. I'm just worried that the new version could mess up something what works fine so far (saw couple of threads where people experience problems after installation of java 7, even with the Mail application!).
I know close to nothing about java, so if someone could point me to the solution which does not involve installation of jre_7u9, it would be nice.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Denis.
EDIT1:
It seems that user/bin/javaws points to the wrong direction:
javaws
No Java runtime present, requesting install.
Unable to locate a Java Runtime to invoke.
that is:
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/Current/Commands/javaws
If i change it to (as suggested here http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5559)
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Commands/javaws
it does work fine, however it does not help Java Web Start.app to run properly, it still requires JRE installation, which is a nonsense.
p/s/ this thread discuss the same problem. This one as well. But so far i don't see any solution to make Java Web Start to work.
A detailed guide on how to solve this problem is presented in Java for OS X 2012-006: How to re-enable the Apple-provided Java SE 6 applet plug-in and Web Start functionality.
I was having the same problem where I could run javaws from the command line, but running from Chrome/Safari/Finder did not work using Java Web Start. The problem I found is that Java Web Start is looking for a user preference that does not exist. I was able to get this working by running:
defaults write com.apple.java.JavaPreferences WebComponentsEnabled -bool true
I want to know if I can install Hive on windows? If yes how can I do that?
As of now the Microsoft provided "Hadoop on Windows" is not available to not available to general consumption and there is no public information about its general availability.
If you see my blog below you will see that I have had chance to use the binaries in past but then most of the focus is on "Hadoop on Azure" now which is in limited CTP release 2:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/avkashchauhan/archive/2012/01/28/creating-your-own-hadoop-cluster-on-windows-azure-by-using-your-own-windows-azure-subscription-account.aspx
I would say that there are developers who have written some articles or solution on having Hadoop and other components running on Windows using Cigwin which you can try however there is nothing very robust and stable I really know. If you really want to give a try I would personally suggest downloading Cloudera Hadoop VM on your Windows Box and give a try using any Virtual Machine player application.
http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r1.0.3/single_node_setup.html
You need to install cygwin.
Would I? No; I'd run the Cloudera VMs and not try to deal with all the possible issues.
Coming real-soon-now is the Hadoop for Windows Server program formerly known as Isotope.
Getting Started with Hadoop For Windows Server
Performance is way better than using Cygwin equivalent install - all the file I/O is done natively instead. Comes with Pig and Hive thrown into the bag too, and has an Azure equivalent install package as well - check it out.
I am totally new to programming and to some new technologies. Right now I am using WAMP on my Windows Vista. For me, using WAMP is very convenient because I am gonna install once and no need for complicated configuration.
I was OK with it until someone told me that it's not good to use WAMP, EasyPHP, XAMPP, and MAMP because if one of the components such as MySQL crashes it won't work anymore. He said that it's best to install them separately and do a pain in the ass configure later.
Please advice.
For development and small low volume sites WAMP is just fine!.
If you are not reasonably experienced with installing configuring Apache, php and whatever SQL you are using then a WAMP package is still the better option as a suboptimal configuration is better than a broken one.
Once you are deploying to production and need to deal with larger transaction volumes and security issues then you should really install the components separately and custom configure for your particular needs.
However realistically if you get as far as a small/medium volume production application it will probably be deployed on a rented application infrastructure where all this will be done for you.
So yes stick with WAMP. Time is better spent getting your App right than learning the esoteric settings in the various config files.
WAMP has a clear goal: to provide a usable PHP environment directly out of the box. 0 configuration needed. 0 knowledge needed. You click and it works. If you are a newcomer, this is an obvious choice.
Configuring complex software like Apache and PHP is really difficult for a newcomer. If you're not actually going to use WAMP in a production environment, there is no reason you would have to touch the default configuration.
Making a separate installation for each of those components just doesn't make sense if you're discovering programming. When you're more experienced, you'll certainly enjoy editing obscure configuration files on a distant machine.
My advice is to go for WAMP on your development PC.
I don't think that the 'crash argument' is valid. It makes no difference if you install a bundle or single component - the problem is find the cause and to fix it. The bundles are designed for an easy start, the price to pay is that the configuration isn't meant for production use. I would prefer to learn using a local bundle and apply my knowledge/skills when I configure a production server (without any pain, because then I can).
WAMP--Windows Apache MySQL PHP
XAMPP--X(Multi OS) Apache MySQL PHP Perl
Wamp is better for newbies, To install, customize easily and learn the basic things in user friendly. Mainly on enabling the dll's in wamp is more easy than Xampp. But it will create many problems as kind of, when we restart the server it may not restarted properly and you need to do additional thing as restart your system or need to re-install wamp. The main drawback is, it support Windows Alone. Normally nowadays everyone prefer to go with Linux server as it have more security purpose. Hence if u develop using wamp, its useless for Linux Production Environment.
So i would suggest Xampp and its also a developer's choice.
It have more features than Wamp,
they are:
Tomcat
Perl
Supports Multi-OS
Filezilla FTP
PHP4
PHP5
It is better to restart the server separately for MySQL, Apache, Mercury, FTP.
For enabling the dll's in Xampp is not a hard task for developer and its a stable server.