Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aw@ice-sa.com designates
 212.85.38.228 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <49E8760A.9080303@ice-sa.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:28:58 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= <aw@ice-sa.com>
Reply-To: aw@ice-sa.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: JK 1.2.28 - load balancer worker fails on startup with one worker
 down ?
References: <B9CF037A5FEA9E4DB37C3AD640A5165909BE2D9298@msgatla.corpmsg.com>
 <9b1062130904151250v3f5c79c2x3c8e2865563f6437@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9DD36C99332AB7438F8D73C048D8C62C026482A6@sneezy.ad.e-dialog.com>
 <9b1062130904151442x23da3533y101dd0e664999e2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49E65D98.9050701@ice-sa.com>
 <9b1062130904151546g3369e7d9j19345664cbf4cbf0@mail.gmail.com>
 <49E6CD30.7070707@ice-sa.com>
 <9b1062130904160855k18b0417al2031ff7ef8026429@mail.gmail.com>
 <49E757F9.6090802@kippdata.de>
In-Reply-To: <49E757F9.6090802@kippdata.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rainer Jung wrote:
[...]
> What remains for me is your suggestion, that the error is not a fatal
> one, since there are other balanced workers left. We could include such
> a check in the startup code, although I'm not really convinced, that
> your problem is a good reason for this.
> 
> I'm open to more argumntation and suggestions :)
> 
Argumentation #1 against a change in logic:
The OP argues that one single unresolvable balanced worker should not 
stop the other 4 from working, hence that the balancer should start 
anyway, since 80% of the capacity is still available.  It sounds 
reasonable in principle.
But what if there are only 2 balanced workers in total, of which one is 
unresolvable at start ? would it be normal to start with only one 
balanced worker available anyway ?
If not, then where's the limit of "acceptable" ?

Argumentation #2 against a change in logic:
Suppose the balancer would start, with the resolved workers only.
Suppose the resolving problem comes from a typo, not the fact that the 
given host is temporarily out of the DNS system, but a definite 
non-existing host.  It will not be retried, so there will never be 
another error/warning message. The host itself may be ok and respond to 
pings etc.., it will just never be hit by Apache's mod_jk, so this would 
be a very quiet error.
How is the sysadmin going to figure out that there is, basically, a 
problem ?

Argumentation for a change in logging:
It would be clearer if the error message stated explicitly that "the 
balancer worker was not started due to a /configuration/ error, see 
above message(s)".

But then, if even I could figure it out from the existing error message, 
then just about everyone should be able to.
And what would be the use of the likes of me, if everything was clear ?
;-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org