tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Jung <rj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JKStatus Bug?
Date Tue, 16 May 2006 22:59:00 GMT
Hi David,

done ;)

It would be nice, if you could test SVN trunk. I also added some small 
documentation parts. The new attribute is called "jvm_route" and it also 
has been included into the status worker.

If you've never built mod_jk from the repository: there is no 
"configure" in the repository. You need to call buildconf.sh first, 
which uses autoconf to generate "configure" from "configure.in".

Cheers,

Rainer

dhay@lexmark.com wrote:
> Actually that's the other way my colleague and I came up with.  It seems a
> little clumsier, but will work for us.
> 
>> I'll see, what I can do ...
> Thanks.  What kind of timeframe are we looking at?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+---------------------------->
> |         |           Rainer Jung      |
> |         |           <rjung@apache.org|
> |         |           >                |
> |         |                            |
> |         |           05/16/2006 02:34 |
> |         |           PM               |
> |         |           Please respond to|
> |         |           "Tomcat          |
> |         |           Developers List" |
> |         |                            |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>   |                                                                                 
                                            |
>   |       To:       Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>            
                                                  |
>   |       cc:                                                                       
                                            |
>   |       Subject:  Re: JKStatus Bug?                                               
                                            |
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> no internally it works like that: an lb worker has an internal
> representation of the status of it's balanced workers. This is created
> during initialization, so each lb worker has his own view of the
> balanced workers. They don't share any information, like disable/stop,
> error or usage counters/load (and that's something I want to keep).
> 
> The alternative approach I was thinking about is giving each (non-lb)
> worker an optional attribute "jvmroute". The attribute is never used
> except when the worker is being configured as a balanced worker for a
> load balancer.
> 
> If a load balancer looks for the config of it's balanced workers, it
> checks for the attribute "jvmroute". If it exists, it uses this name for
> stickyness. If it does not exist, it uses the name of the worker.
> 
> The change is completely compatible with existing configs. In your case,
> you would configure one worker pr tomcat target *and* per lb. Say you've
> got TC1 and TC2 as tomcats and LB1 and LB2 as lbs. Then you configure 4
> workers:
> 
> worker.lb1tc1.type=ajp13
> worker.lb1tc1.host=HOST_OF_TC1
> ...
> worker.lb1tc1.jvmroute=TC1
> worker.lb1tc1.disabled=WHATEVER
> 
> ... 2 further workers ...
> 
> worker.lb2tc2.type=ajp13
> worker.lb2tc2.host=HOST_OF_TC1
> ...
> worker.lb2tc2.jvmroute=TC2
> worker.lb2tc2.disabled=WHATEVER
> 
> and two lb workers:
> 
> worker.lb1.type=lb
> worker.lb1.balanced_workers=lb1tc1,lb1tc2
> 
> worker.lb2.type=lb
> worker.lb2.balanced_workers=lb2tc1,lb2tc2
> 
> That way you can configure all attributes of the balanced workers per lb
> and the implementation changes are far less risky. I'll see, what I can
> do ...
> 
> Rainer
> 
> dhay@lexmark.com wrote:
>> Hi Rainer,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply.
>>
>> As far as configuration change suggestions, how about making things more
>> fine-grained, so you can specify the worker within the balancer - eg:
>>
>>     worker.adminloadbalancer.BLUFF.disabled=1
>>
>> Presumably something like that is happening within jkstatus?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> David
>> x54680
>>
>>
>> |---------+---------------------------->
>> |         |           Rainer Jung      |
>> |         |           <rjung@apache.org|
>> |         |           >                |
>> |         |                            |
>> |         |           05/16/2006 01:36 |
>> |         |           PM               |
>> |         |           Please respond to|
>> |         |           "Tomcat          |
>> |         |           Developers List" |
>> |         |                            |
>> |---------+---------------------------->
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
>>   |
> |
>>   |       To:       Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
> |
>>   |       cc:
> |
>>   |       Subject:  Re: JKStatus Bug?
> |
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it's true, that jkstatus doesn't persist changes. There is no
>> functionality there to write a workers.properties (it's somewhere near
>> the end of the TODO).
>>
>> Concerning disabled: Yes, disabled at the moment is an attribute
>> belonging to a worker and when using stickyness for any jvmRoute you can
>> only have one worker.
>>
>> So if you want to use a worker in several balancers with different
>> enable/disable or start/stop values, the workers.properties gives you no
>> way to configure that.
>>
>> Any ideas how such a configuration could look like? If the idea looks
>> good, i might implement :)
>>
>> In case you only have further user questions, please proceed on
>> users@tomcat.apache.org.
>>
>> Concerning improvment of configuration syntax in workers.properties this
>> thread is right.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>> P.S.: local_worker and local_worker_only does no longer exist since some
>> thime before 1.2.15. The attributes are being ignored.
>>
>> dhay@lexmark.com wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We're using 3 load-balancers to seperate our requests up (client and
>> admin
>>> etc.) and numerous tomcat servers (we're running Apache in front).
>>>
>>> We need to be able to disable servers on a load-balancer level - so I
>> need
>>> to disable 2 of the 3 load balancers on a particular server, say.  We
> can
>>> do this fine using the jkstatus page, but when the machines are
>> restarted,
>>> the changes don't seem to have been persisted.
>>>
>>> And it seems that workers.properties is not fine-grained enough to
> handle
>>> this?
>>>
>>> Our setup is below...
>>>
>>> Any ideas how to get around this?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> David


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message