tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schultz <>
Subject mod_jk monitoring
Date Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:04:05 GMT
Hash: SHA256


I've been playing around with mod_jk's status screens a lot lately. I
also recently upgraded from Apache httpd 2.2 to Apache httpd 2.4 and
the hostname shown at the top of the page changed from the "real"
hostname to the masquerading hostname (more on that in a second) and I
was wondering what else was going on.

First off, I have a load-balancer with 3 web servers behind it. Each
individual web server has its own distinct hostname (the "real"
hostname) like,, etc. plus, when you
contact it through the load-balancer, it thinks it's ""
of course.

Everything seems to work fine.

These days, the jk-status page always says "JK Status Manager for" when I visit the page, no matter which back-end
server I get by entering When I
connect to an individual server, I use HTTPS of course, so I get the
"_default_:443" virtual host which makes sense.

My conf/hostname.conf has "ServerName" and no server
aliases, and my conf.d/ssl.conf has no ServerName and no ServerAlias.
(This is on Amazon Linux, which is essentially CentOS, and I'm using
package-managed versions of httpd so this is the layout they have).

I'm assuming that, since I have no ServerAlias for my :443
VirtualHost, that's where the name at the top of the page comes from.
Can anyone confirm that? It would be nice if the page advertised my
"real" hostname instead of the generic one. That is, I'd like to see
"JK Status Manager for" instead of
"". Would adding a ServerAlias in either
hostname.conf (which I believe is loaded at the top-level
configuration) or in ssl.conf inside the VirtualHost achieve that?

Next, I have a question about the workers. I believe - but I'm not
sure - that each worker is unique to the server as a whole, and not to
just a single VirtualHost, right? That is, my
file contains a series of worker definitions and I can use them in any
VirtualHost I like. If I reference the same worker from two different
VirtualHosts, I just get two references to the same worker, right?

The reason I ask is that I don't have the jk-status page available for
users coming from the load-balancer. I want to make sure that when I
disable a worker when looking at the :443 jk-status page that I'm
disabling it across all VirtualHosts in the server.

(The load-balancer uses a different VirtualHost, and it's tough to
convince the load-balancer to pick a specific back-end server to
direct my commands to, so... it's kind of important that the above be

Can anyone confirm that the workers are shared? I think it would be
very difficult to administer if the workers were not shared, but I
wanted to be absolutely sure.

- -chris
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools -


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message