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]
lb_factor defect.
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. # Workers.properties ps=/ worker.list=infonetworker # # First tomcat server # worker.tomcat1.port=8112 worker.tomcat1.host=clos1030.casden.fr worker.tomcat1.type=ajp13 worker.tomcat1.cachesize=10 worker.tomcat1.cache_timeout=600 worker.tomcat1.socket_keepalive=0 worker.tomcat1.socket_timeout=300 # # Specifies the load balance factor when used with # a load balancing worker. # Note: # > lbfactor must be > 0 # > Low lbfactor means less work done by the worker. worker.tomcat1.lbfactor=1 # # Second tomcat server # worker.tomcat2.port=8112 worker.tomcat2.host=clos1032.casden.fr worker.tomcat2.type=ajp13 worker.tomcat2.cachesize=10 worker.tomcat2.cache_timeout=600 worker.tomcat2.socket_keepalive=0 worker.tomcat2.socket_timeout=300 # # Specifies the load balance factor when used with # a load balancing worker. # Note: # > lbfactor must be > 0 # > Low lbfactor means less work done by the worker. worker.tomcat2.lbfactor=1 # # Load Balancer worker # # # The loadbalancer (type lb) worker performs weighted round-robin # load balancing with sticky sessions. # Note: # > If a worker dies, the load balancer will check its state # once in a while. Until then all work is redirected to peer # worker. worker.infonetworker.type=lb worker.infonetworker.balanced_workers=tomcat1, tomcat2 # # END workers.properties # Eric LAGALISSE - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
