Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 62384 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2009 09:41:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2009 09:41:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 98339 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 09:41:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 98262 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 09:41:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 98251 invoked by uid 99); 17 Nov 2009 09:41:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:41:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rainer.jung@kippdata.de designates 195.227.30.149 as permitted sender) Received: from [195.227.30.149] (HELO mailserver.kippdata.de) (195.227.30.149) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:41:26 +0000 Received: from [195.227.30.209] (notebook-rj [195.227.30.209]) by mailserver.kippdata.de (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id nAH9f4Ln003550 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:41:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B026FAB.2010903@kippdata.de> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:40:59 +0100 From: Rainer Jung User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Sharing the same $CATALINA_BASE References: <4B0247F7.5040208@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4B0247F7.5040208@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 17.11.2009 07:51, Mladen Turk wrote: > Hi, > > Anyone knows what might be the pitfalls of sharing the > CATALINA_BASE among multiple TC instances? > > Presume you have a way to bind multiple instance's > Connectors to the same ports what might be other problems? > > For example app management (stop/start) is not recognized > across instances, although deployment is, thanks to > the file system scanning. Adding some shared status resource > would handle the first one thought. > > Logging looks good, although at least DEBUG would need > to carry an instance pid. > > Anything else? temp: Depends on what the app does with it work: Update JSP and multiple Japsers generating servlet code to the same file ... webapps: inconsistencies possible when doing deploy/undeploy (details unclear) logs: catalina.out behaviour might be platform dependent (multiple processes writing to the same file) juli-Logs: no idea, whether the implementation or the JVM classes append each line, or lines might get corrupted log4j: possibly the same as juli Never tried it. Is it worth the experiment? If you only want to share the config, I would prefer to separate at least temp, logs and work per instance. Regards, Rainer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org