tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 44349] - mod_jk/1.2.26 module does not read worker.status.sticky_session_force property correctly
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:54:17 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44349>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44349





------- Additional Comments From amz_sid@trashmail.net  2008-02-07 00:54 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> The file contains sticky_session_force=0 (False/Off).
> Can you confirm, that the file belongs to the startup test which logged
> sticky_session_force=True, i.e. it's timestamp and PID are OK? I want to exclude
> the possibility, that we are talking about a stale file.
> 
> I'll now think about ways, how the wrong information could get into the shm file.

I have just:
- stopped the Apache processes.
- cleared out all [APACHE_INSTALL]/logs/jk.shm.* files.
- Checked that the workers.properties is configured with sticky_session_force=True.
- Started the Apache process up again.
- found the files:
    - [APACHE_INSTALL]/logs/jk.shm.3597.lock
    - [APACHE_INSTALL]/logs/jk.shm.3597
- checked the Apache process and it was 3597.
- I will attach jk.shm.3597 file to the ticket too.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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


Mime
View raw message