Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-manifoldcf-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-manifoldcf-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B09A118808 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 56608 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2015 07:05:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-manifoldcf-user-archive@manifoldcf.apache.org Received: (qmail 56549 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2015 07:05:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@manifoldcf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@manifoldcf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@manifoldcf.apache.org Received: (qmail 56539 invoked by uid 99); 11 Nov 2015 07:05:15 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:05:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E8CA8CCB74 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:05:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.9 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zPirXtBQHdRs for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6C1FE439DB for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbhv6 with SMTP id hv6so16447980igb.0 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:05:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=CkCTZ4yrg+xSzW4Rgr+HdEMFNcwVd+VFIAejaj5x4L8=; b=mJv0O7Ofr1Ndz6GKxCdqt4FghdLM8JPEFWl0Chgzw91jt29kFmdkDDq+fN4ZhjfBxf 0SA+oXELJpWAuWZswxeAorkw/0NhSkOPydY4AVwDM3BdMlOOVnpPKuE9JRr0PbDmX/ou CmnZRfBlfOse0Xx5aXRmbLXOXWXGgUOlfSyaF4MxG9IyZWGGyfE6giTJOyuDaNIW0eUz 7cUZ3t9WOjRjeGIGeVYp5NCsqEVG5Iiv/7kyeeU51SEDNbu3I6wJyLiGUsvuFimvRnJG NpUKMEF9GlmoSJk2fpnrhD/j2yrMvARD54bd+Zu/tuDVgNVL1waOTrLrnuDb73QAKATd cNig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.129 with SMTP id w1mr8225157igl.96.1447225508063; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:05:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.29.81 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:05:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MCF agent falls down with tomcat From: Karl Wright To: "user@manifoldcf.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0103e36651730905243e7221 --089e0103e36651730905243e7221 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Shigeki, There's been no design change here. Can you describe your deployment picture more precisely? If you are deployed using the combined war, then all of MCF depends on tomcat. But if you deploy the crawler-ui war, authority war, and api war, with a separate agents process, then everything should be separable. Karl On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Shigeki Kobayashi < shigeki.kobayashi3@g.softbank.co.jp> wrote: > Hi everyone. > > I use Tomcat7 and MCF 2.2 > > I realize when tomcat falls down, MCF agent also falls down. > I did not see the agent falls down with tomcat in older versions of MCF. > > Did the specification become changed? > > --089e0103e36651730905243e7221 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Shigeki,

There's been no design = change here.=C2=A0 Can you describe your deployment picture more precisely?=

If you are deployed using the combined war, then = all of MCF depends on tomcat.=C2=A0 But if you deploy the crawler-ui war, a= uthority war, and api war, with a separate agents process, then everything = should be separable.

Karl


On Tue, Nov 10,= 2015 at 11:32 PM, Shigeki Kobayashi <shigeki.kobayashi3= @g.softbank.co.jp> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">Hi everyone.

I use Tomcat7 and MCF 2.2

I realize when tomcat falls down, MCF agent also fa= lls down.
I did not see the agent falls down with tomcat in older= versions of MCF.

Did the specification become cha= nged?


--089e0103e36651730905243e7221--