Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35711 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2004 14:32:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Oct 2004 14:32:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 68529 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2004 14:31:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 68501 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2004 14:31:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Users List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 68488 invoked by uid 99); 1 Oct 2004 14:31:35 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.49.144.157] (HELO host12-server.com) (66.49.144.157) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:31:33 -0700 Received: from lqfhvaio ([198.212.148.225]) by host12-server.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i91EVUQ24764 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:31:30 -0400 Message-ID: <0f1001c4a7c3$57f3bff0$dd01dc0a@Corp.LaQuinta.com> From: "Filip Hanik - Dev" To: "Tomcat Users List" References: <38A9EC5928D4D8498ECCBF14DF7C54440C0255@server02.hh.uptime.de> Subject: Re: Synchronization in cluster Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:31:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N cause if you have two servers, two different sessions can perform upload in two different VMs. He never said there is only one session doing upload, he was asking for a distributed lock Filip ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Einfeldt" To: "Tomcat Users List" Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:36 AM Subject: RE: Synchronization in cluster Why not ? As I understood the static variable holds the information for the current upload. If the session is sticky the user will stay in the same jvm and see the same static variable with each refresh. I just see some downsides: - if you want to assure that the downloads are serialised you have to implement a locking mechanism. - you loose the central point to see all states at the same time. - if the instance that performs the update dies, the user will get to an instance that doesn't know anything about the download. > -----Original Message----- > From: Filip Hanik (lists) [mailto:devlists@hanik.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:51 PM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: Synchronization in cluster > > > That doesn't solve the problem > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Einfeldt [mailto:ralph.einfeldt@uptime-isc.de] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:26 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: Synchronization in cluster > > > > With this usage scenario i would recommend sticky sessions. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org