Return-Path: 
 <tomcat-user-return-132056-apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 94299 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2005 16:03:41 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Aug 2005 16:03:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 72514 invoked by uid 500); 29 Aug 2005 16:03:21 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72501 invoked by uid 500); 29 Aug 2005 16:03:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: "Tomcat Users List" <tomcat-user.jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72488 invoked by uid 99); 29 Aug 2005 16:03:21 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:03:21 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Received: from [195.98.198.209] (HELO mail.anova.de) (195.98.198.209)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:03:36 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.anova.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD0D286D
	for <tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.anova.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mail.anova.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
 id 28396-01 for <tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>;
 Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:03:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from doppelherz (doppelherz.hq.anova.de [192.168.243.37])
	by mail.anova.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 4172E1141
	for <tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:03:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <004601c5acb3$27709420$25f3a8c0@doppelherz>
From: "Olaf Lautenschlaeger" <ol_may_expire_if_spammed@anova.de>
To: <tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: workers.properties directives
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:02:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.anova.de
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

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