Will TC run on a Windows Server Core installation?  For those of you not
familiar with that term, it's a windows server installation with no GUI,
and minimal other pieces.  The idea is a reduced disk, memory and cpu
footprint (rather Unix/Linux like).

D

David,

I can't imagine why it wouldn't, unless the JVM does something silly
like trying to initialize the graphics subsystem even when there isn't
one available.

There doesn't seem to be a reason to me why Tomcat itself would
present a problem.

- -chris

Have to differentiate between the JVM graphics subsystem and that of the platform.  The JVM graphics subsystem is *always* available, even on a headless system.  Whether or not you can display the results of JVM graphics processing is determined by the availability of a GUI display mechanism on the box.

I would definitely set -Djava.awt.headless=true for this environment to insure there's no attempt at GUI usage.

- Chuck

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.

One might be forgiven if one were to wonder why one would then not use a perfectly
serviceable minimal Linux base then, no ?
Once you take away the GUI, what is left that is so compelling about Windows Server ?

And just by curiosity, what would be this resulting footprint then, as compared to a
normal Windows Server ? (a link to some unbiased info would satisfy my curiosity too; what
I could find about it on MSDN is not very explicit).

The biggest advantage I can see would be that the scripting language
would be what I already know and am comfortable with.  Also, it would be
easier to integrate with our domain authentication.

D

> -----Original Message----- =0A> From: André Warnier [mailto:aw@ice-s=2Ecom] =0A> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:02 PM =0A> To: Tomcat sers List =0A> Subject: Re: TC on Windows Server Core =0A> =0A> Dvid kerber wrote: =0A> > Will TC run on a Windows Server Core installatin=3F  For those of you =0A> not =0A> > familiar with that term, it's awindows server installation with no =0A> GUI, =0A> > and minimal otherpieces.  The idea is a reduced disk, memory and cpu =0A> > footprint (raher Unix/Linux like). =0A> > =0A> One might be forgiven if one were towonder why one would then not use =0A> a perfectly =0A> serviceable miimal Linux base then, no =3F =0A> Once you take away the GUI, what is let that is so compelling about =0A> Windows Server =3F =0A> =0A> Ad just by curiosity, what would be this resulting footprint then, as =0A compared to a =0A> normal Windows Server =3F (a link to some unbiased ifo would satisfy my =0A> curiosity too; what =0A> I could find about i on MSDN is not very explicit). =0A =0AI couldn't say exactly what thedifference would be, but I would think there'd be a significant reduction n disk requirements, and certainly in memory used.  You don't have any of hat GUI software even on the disk to try to run it, only the binaries requred for the roles you define for the server.  Might have some issues instaling 3rd party software -- have to do everything in silent mode with setupscripts. =0AAs far as saving CPU cycles, how many does it really use eeping a login prompt up on the screen 24/7=3F =0ADownside from a tomcatperspective that I can see, you miss out on the wonderful configuration GU from the Commons Daemon guys.  I've really grown to like that tool on my indows platforms. =0A =0AOverall, I can't see any reason Tomcat wouldnt run on it, but it might be extra work getting it installed and set up.  ut probably not much more than on Linux/Unix. =0A=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =0A =0AConfidentialit Notice:  This Transmission (including any attachments) may contain informtion that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under aplicable law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient ou are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited.   =0A =0AIf you have receved this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender or elephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your system. =0

I would say the very same reasons apply
- reduced ressource utilization
- less vulnerable
- best tool for the job (if windows is your everyday OS)

Not your favourite OS? s/windows/os_your_favorite_os/g. If you can
afford it there is an unlimited freedom of choice - but I guess this is
not the right list for os flame wars.

Back to your question. I recommend to read http://blogs.technet.com/b/jorke/archive/2008/09/17/cat-powe[..]  
. It is a bit dated but lists an ugly pitfall: MSVCR71.dll is required
but not included. (don't know if this still applies)

Also many 3rd party libraries use awt for some internal purpose and
expect a display (even on linux). So use java.awt.headless=true.

    Stefan

I've found the explaination for this behaviour in Oracles bug database: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6509291

It is marked as "won't fix". So you still need to copy the dll

    Stefan

> -----Original Message----- =0A> From: Stefan Mayr [mailto:stefan*******is required =0A> but not included. (don't know if this still aplies) =0A =0AI like how he starts off the article saying he wants to et up a minimal footprint web server and then the first thing he does is istall IIS on the thing. He could have set up Tomcat standalone and had a mch smaller footprint. =0AOn the   side, it did give him a chance how to et up the JK in that environment. =0A=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =0A =0AConfidentiality Notice:  Tis Transmission (including any attachments) may contain information that i privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you are herey notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communcation is strictly prohibited.   =0A =0AIf you have received this trnsmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender or telephone (52) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your system. =0A

Just in case, my question was not purely academical, and not trying to start a flame.
We build small systems for specialised applications, running on disk-less, fan-less boxes
similar to the one here :  http://www.hacom.net/catalog/legacy-products/lex-neo
(don't know the supplier, but that's the box).
These things are economical, ecological (low-power, low-noise), very reliable (no moving
parts), boot and do everything from an SSD device etc.. (*)
But they have a limited amount of RAM.
So far, we use a basic Linux install, on top of which we run whatever else we need.
But some customers are Windows-centric, so I was wondering if this W2008 Server Core would
be a solution in some cases.  My experience with Windows so far tells me that with less
than 2 GB, one can't run Vista or Windows 7 with any level of performance, so that's why I
am curious about what is really meant here by "reduced memory and CPU footprint".
But I don't seem to find any specifics anywhere.
I think memory is really relevant when one talks about Java (and Tomcat).

(*) the only problem is : they are small, noiseless, they do not fit in a standard rack,
they have no blinking lights etc.. so people tend to set them up on a windowsill and
forget about what they do.

André,

Belgians don't start flame wars, do they?

Disk-less box boots from SSD? Maybe you meant "no spinning disk"?

Just curious: which distro do you use? Something like DSL or just
Debian/RedHat/whatever with most packages not installed?

Yup. Depending on the application, you can get away with a
(relatively) modest heap size. We operated in production with a "mere"
64MiB heap for years before our user base grew to the point where we
were suffering OOMEs. (Actually, in our last release, we significantly
decreased the amount of memory ever required by a single user by
changing the way we page-through db search results and our memory
usage curves are much gentler than they used to be).

Aah... "magic box that you shouldn't touch". I've seen those, before.
Usually not on window sills, but the point is the same.

- -chris