RE: RE : lb_factor defect.
He means please try again with the latest version from CVS, i.e. HEAD. Jason -Original Message- From: LAGALISSE Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 3/24/2003 7:29 AM To: Tomcat Developers List Cc: Subject:RE : lb_factor defect. We're using the 1.2.2 release. Could you explain me what you mean by ' Could you retry with HEAD ?' Thanks for your help. Eric LAGALISSE -Message d'origine- De : Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : lundi 24 mars 2003 13:11 À : Tomcat Developers List Objet : Re: lb_factor defect. LAGALISSE Eric wrote: > After several test using mod_jk 2.0.43 on Linux with apache 2.0.43 we > noticed that if we define workers.properties as follow the load > balancing send to both tomcat server but not in the same ratio. > > For example if we stress with 100 users, 80 are routed to the first > tomcat server declared in workers.properties and 20 are routed to the > second. > > > > After a look at the source code i supposed that if lb_factor is similar > for all load_balanced worker, load should be equal on all. But not. > Which release of mod_jk are you using ? jk 1.2.2 is the latest release and there is some fixes in HEAD (which will became shortly 1.2.3). Could you retry with HEAD ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE : lb_factor defect.
We're using the 1.2.2 release. Could you explain me what you mean by ' Could you retry with HEAD ?' Thanks for your help. Eric LAGALISSE -Message d'origine- De : Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : lundi 24 mars 2003 13:11 À : Tomcat Developers List Objet : Re: lb_factor defect. LAGALISSE Eric wrote: > After several test using mod_jk 2.0.43 on Linux with apache 2.0.43 we > noticed that if we define workers.properties as follow the load > balancing send to both tomcat server but not in the same ratio. > > For example if we stress with 100 users, 80 are routed to the first > tomcat server declared in workers.properties and 20 are routed to the > second. > > > > After a look at the source code i supposed that if lb_factor is similar > for all load_balanced worker, load should be equal on all. But not. > Which release of mod_jk are you using ? jk 1.2.2 is the latest release and there is some fixes in HEAD (which will became shortly 1.2.3). Could you retry with HEAD ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lb_factor defect.
LAGALISSE Eric wrote: After several test using mod_jk 2.0.43 on Linux with apache 2.0.43 we noticed that if we define workers.properties as follow the load balancing send to both tomcat server but not in the same ratio. For example if we stress with 100 users, 80 are routed to the first tomcat server declared in workers.properties and 20 are routed to the second. After a look at the source code i supposed that if lb_factor is similar for all load_balanced worker, load should be equal on all. But not. Which release of mod_jk are you using ? jk 1.2.2 is the latest release and there is some fixes in HEAD (which will became shortly 1.2.3). Could you retry with HEAD ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
