Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C109592F9 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 33785 invoked by uid 500); 30 Apr 2012 16:49:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 33690 invoked by uid 500); 30 Apr 2012 16:49:21 -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 33680 invoked by uid 99); 30 Apr 2012 16:49:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:49:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of allstaraga@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.43] (HELO mail-wg0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:49:15 +0000 Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so2502072wgb.0 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KW8raGcqwyKx2gK6UEa6ibih4o4i68jGQG84LBhCmzs=; b=fjzSJiN6cGTauahjUFoNK5bPO4Vo6vw1NO79iecWWl6Zul5h2s+dsWYzjJqF+ddm9p uouR5euzM68NyBVW8gjjDMLdi425xoE9S3GFXrgwvDBaPpLo1EbMeX7iq/d1InjjOcn+ uRD1Dpx6c0bfI8YoKNnPKcU2+LfBfWe4uWNwMst1fGUTeU19N/afxec+TGBjAWVW7aX7 nitFIoDEOpHQ9mcEDHj55vhnh7zdRTj8ihVEYN8rrVXezdjLIhFG/QDJtI8FLmZm/mRu 1nVgzNW5PC5hN8W17ABB4TqH1YpvNLRiKT2qkVUy825Oyf18BV3jxqHHCGz4UwcKCWDA 0RHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.139.204 with SMTP id c54mr13068559wej.103.1335804535046; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.93.194 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F9EA654.6060903@christopherschultz.net> References: <4F9EA654.6060903@christopherschultz.net> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:48:54 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mod_jk recovery when tomcat killed From: Agnieszka Allstar To: Tomcat Users List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d99fa4cd00a804bee83a50 --0016e6d99fa4cd00a804bee83a50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2012/4/30 Christopher Schultz > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kate, > > On 4/30/12 7:06 AM, Agnieszka Allstar wrote: > > Here's my test scenario: 1. Web service client sends SOAP request > > to apache server. This client sends requests in 2 flavors, either > > it is a generic SOAP call (A case) or a soap request with some > > files attached with MTOM (B case). Web service is capable of > > handling both types of requests. 2. Once the processing starts, I > > kill this tomcat with "kill -9". > > > > The results are: A - when tomcat1 is killed, the request is > > automatically transmitted to tomcat2. Client receives correct > > results. This is OK. B - when tomcat1 is killed, the request is not > > transmitted to tomcat2. Client receives 502 error: bad gateway > > instead. > > Are you using POST to send both messages (A case and B case)? > Yes, both are POST. > > What if you send a very *small* attachment via MTOM? I'm wondering > what the real difference is, since in both cases you should be sending > HTTP POST... the only difference should be larger Content-Length. > Good idea, gotta check the small attachment version and see what happens. I've also noticed that requests differ in Content-Type. For simple soap request is text/xml and the one with attachments is multipart/related; type="application/xop+xml (...). > > I wonder if mod_jk can only failover the current request (with no > error to the client) if the request is small enough (or only a small > amount has already been transferred to the failing server). > This could be it I'll check this out. I only need to wait few days until I'm back in office. > > > [Fri Apr 27 12:19:08 2012] [1376450:1] [error] > > service::jk_lb_worker.c (1425): unrecoverable error 502, request > > failed. Tomcat failed in the middle of reques [Fri Apr 27 12:19:08 > > 2012] [1376450:1] [error] service::jk_lb_worker.c (1485): All > > tomcat instances failed, no more workers left > > This looks like you have killed both tomcat instances and mod_jk can > contact neither of them. Are you sure you have gotten mod_jk back in > communication with both servers between "A case" and "B case" runs? If > you haven't, this isn't really a valid test. > I'm pretty sure there was only one tomcat killed but I'll rerun my tests. As for initial state, after each test I restart both mod_jk (apache) and tomcat servers and make sure they appear as ok in mod_jk. > > (It looks like some of your mod_jk.log lines have been truncated... > was that simply a copy/paste error?) > You're right thanks. > > - -chris > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk+eplQACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCDWgCdGiF1xBEIUg3tDfj5bV/HjH+m > ZkYAoIcFbG7EmdyKm0Jha15HrGOzsC88 > =PQqY > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org > > --0016e6d99fa4cd00a804bee83a50--