Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 47919 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 14:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 15 May 2002 14:05:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17734 invoked by uid 97); 15 May 2002 14:05:12 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17621 invoked by uid 97); 15 May 2002 14:05:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17524 invoked by uid 98); 15 May 2002 14:05:10 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: <3CE26B08.8010606@schlund.de> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:04:56 +0200 From: Bernd Koecke Organization: Schlund+Partner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020510 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: local worker patch for JK1 References: <200205151315.g4FDFhe03419@glop.federalservice.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Mathias.Herberts@iroise.net wrote: > Hi, > > there is something that bothers me in the patch Bernd sent, that is > the local_worker property of workers, I think the concept of local > worker is linked with that of load balancing worker, and not to that > of worker. Nothing forbids to have an ajp13 worker in several load > balancing workers, if the local worker property is linked to the ajp13 > worker, the worker will be considered local for every load balancing > worker it appears in which is something I think should be avoided. > > Mathias. > Sorry, but I asked for, how to handle this flag yesterday and I got no response. Costin said, that he'll wait for my patch, and I don't want to let him wait for days. If we add a list to the lb_worker, how should this be handled? Lets say it is called 'local_workers'. Should the local workers be in the list of balanced workers too? If yes, I think this makes the config look a little bit unclean. If not, we have to change the validate function more than I want to, because it depends on having balanced workers. And with a second list it is possible to have only local workers. By the way, with the same motivation we should ask about the lb_value. It is not possible to have one worker with different values in different lb_workers. But it may be that one worker is the most powerful in one group (lb_worker) and less powerful in another. Ok normaly the lb_values should be choosen in order to the power of all workers and not because of one group. :) I build the patch for the described simple situation. When I understand jk2 right, this would be the right choice for a more complex environment. Which way should be implemented? We should find one position and implement it then. May be I was a little bit to fast this time :). Bernd -- Dipl.-Inform. Bernd Koecke UNIX-Entwicklung Schlund+Partner AG Fon: +49-721-91374-0 E-Mail: bk@schlund.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: