tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Olaf Lautenschlaeger" <>
Subject directives
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:02:58 GMT
Hi all,

recently I stumbled over the mod_jk statusworker feature coming with
recent mod_jk versions and, of course, I immediately wanted to have
such neat thing :-)

Up to that time, I didn't saw an imperative need to have balanced wor-
kers (Apache+Tomcat on the same machine; one single ajp13 type
worker did his job fine for me so far).

Since it turned out that the status worker will talk to lb type workers
only, I simply renamed my existing ajp13 worker, then established
another lb type worker of the former name which itself "sits" now on
that ajp13 type (or "node") worker.

But here I'm asking myself: Where do I preferably apply those "more
sophisticated" settings like

worker.XY.recycle_timeout, worker.XY.cachesize or
worker.XY.cache_timeout ??

(seems that we can assign them both to lb type as to ajp13 type workers;
at least I didn't found anything that rules out doing so in the online

In other words, do they a better job when defined with worker "MyWorker"
or with "node1" in the following httpd.conf example (simplified view;
think yourself a "JkWorkerProperty" in front of all these "worker..."


<Location /MyContext >
  JkMount MyWorker


Some of that worker.XY... options sound more "IP related", so I would
tend to assign them to ajp13 type workers;
on the other hand, worker.XY.cachesize seems to have more impact to
the endpoint software layer, which implies that it unfolds it's effect
better within the load balancer tier.



Olaf Lautenschlaeger
ANOVA Multimedia Studios GmbH
Joachim-Jungius-Strasse 9
D-18059 Rostock / Germany

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message