tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rainer Jung" <tomcat-u...@kippdata.de>
Subject Re: workers.properties directives
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:18:06 GMT
mod_jk 1.2.14:

List of workers, attributes and defaults. ajp14 is not included.

global:

- worker.maintain (60)
[and some obvious others]

all workers:

- type (ajp13)

ajp12:

- host (localhost)
- port (8007)

ajp13:

- host (localhost)
- port (8009)
- connection_pool_size (1) [aka "cachesize" which is the old and
deprecated name]
- cache_timeout (0)
- socket_timeout (-1 = disabled)
- socket_buffer (8192)
- socket_keepalive (false)
- recycle_timeout (0)
- connect_timeout (0)
- reply_timeout (0)
- prepost_timeout (0)
- recovery_options (0)
- retries (3)

lb:

- balanced_workers / balance_workers
- sticky_session (1)
- sticky_session_force (0)
- method (0=BYREQUESTS)
- lock (O=OPTIMISTIC)
- recover_time (60, also mimimum 60)

per balanced worker:

- lbfactor (1)
- domain (NULL)
- redirect (NULL)
- disabled (0)
- stopped (0)

I hope this helps.

Viel Spaß wünscht

Rainer Jung

--

kippdata informationstechnologie GmbH
Bornheimer Str. 33a
D-53115 Bonn

> 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
> docs)
>
> 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..."
> directives):
>
> worker.list=MyWorker
> worker.MyWorker.type=lb
> worker.MyWorker.balance_workers=node1
> worker.node1.type=ajp13
> worker.node1.host=localhost
> worker.node1.port=8009
>
> <Location /MyContext >
>   JkMount MyWorker
> </Location>
>
> ??
>
> 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.
>
> TIA
>
> Regards
>
> Olaf Lautenschlaeger
> --
> ANOVA Multimedia Studios GmbH
> Joachim-Jungius-Strasse 9
> D-18059 Rostock / Germany
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message