Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35375 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2010 19:32:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2010 19:32:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 38364 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2010 19:32:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 38267 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2010 19:32:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 38258 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jul 2010 19:32:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:32:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aw@ice-sa.com designates 212.85.38.228 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.85.38.228] (HELO tor.combios.es) (212.85.38.228) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:32:40 +0000 Received: from [192.168.245.235] (p549EA6DF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.158.166.223]) by tor.combios.es (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8D7A3226250 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:30:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C4F3429.90606@ice-sa.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:31:53 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= Reply-To: Tomcat Users List User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: Tomcat Shutting Down by Itself? References: <768FEA3F936926468F594E3CA7741FE8024A6515@ipa-vault.nvipa.com> <4C4F2D44.6030000@ice-sa.com> In-Reply-To: <4C4F2D44.6030000@ice-sa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Andr� Warnier wrote: > Robinson, Eric wrote: >>> Yes. Each instance serves a different set of users in a local office >>> somewhere. >> >> By that I mean each pair of load-balanced instances serves a set of >> users in a local office somewhere. >> > Then my suspicions would be as follows : > this particular set of users of this complex application, uses a > particular functionality of the application, used by no other set of > users, and that particular functionality contains (or triggers) a bug > that blows away the server. > And we have a set of options here : - tell the customer to close down that office and move the people somewhere else, to a Tomcat instance that works. I they also then crash that one, then we know - more efficiently : switch the ports between those instances, and some other set of instances which at the moment do not crash. If the other one then starts crashing, then we also know. (Of course that may not work if each instance has its particular set of back-end data. That would be messy.) - or else, start capturing the packets destined to these crashing instances of Tomcat. Since they have their own port, it should be easy to do that with wireshark, filtering on the destination port. The next time it crashes, examine the end of the packet capture to see if you can determine the sequence which crashes the server. - or maybe simpler : when one of these instances crashes, do the users notice anything ? or does it just smoothly switch to the other balanced instance ? If they notice, they may be able to tell what they were doing just before ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org