Re: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
Of course you are right (and for me it seems to be too late today). So I agree: you either find out how to use different jvmRoutes in a single instance or you try to find a workarounf with the domain attribute: If a load balancer does not find a worker with the correct name (=jvmRoute), it will next use a worker whose domain name is equal to the jvmRoute. But this will not be very efficient, because every request will first look for the "correct" worker and only after that check for the domain. Also I'm not sure, how this "second class worker" will behave, if you stopp it with respect to it's redirect etc. attributes. Sorry! > Rainer Jung wrote: >> The balanced workers behind lb1, lb2 etc. are allowed to have the same >> name, because each load balancer has it's own list of balanced workers >> with associated attributes. I expect no problem from a clash of names of >> balanced workers in different balancing workers. > > I must be missing something obvious here. I am with you on the JKMount > part, but I just don't see how the name clash isn't an issue for > worker.properties. Simplifying again ... > > # as per your suggestion ... where "worker1" and "worker2" are jvmRoutes > worker.lb1.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 > worker.lb2.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 > > # the balanced workers ... which should they choose ... ? > worker.worker1 (failover version) > worker.worker1 (not failover version) > worker.worker2 (standby version) > worker.worker2 (non-standby version) > > - > 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: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
Rainer Jung wrote: The balanced workers behind lb1, lb2 etc. are allowed to have the same name, because each load balancer has it's own list of balanced workers with associated attributes. I expect no problem from a clash of names of balanced workers in different balancing workers. I must be missing something obvious here. I am with you on the JKMount part, but I just don't see how the name clash isn't an issue for worker.properties. Simplifying again ... # as per your suggestion ... where "worker1" and "worker2" are jvmRoutes worker.lb1.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 worker.lb2.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 # the balanced workers ... which should they choose ... ? worker.worker1 (failover version) worker.worker1 (not failover version) worker.worker2 (standby version) worker.worker2 (non-standby version) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
I think having multiple load balancing workers for the same group of
target servers is not a problem.
You simply define load balancers e.g. lb1, lb2 etc.
Which load balancer is chosen is determined by your JkMount directives. So
if you have different apps app1, app2 etc. on your tomcats having
incompatible balancing requirements you simply use
JkMount /app1/* lb1
JkMount /app2/* lb2
etc.
The balanced workers behind lb1, lb2 etc. are allowed to have the same
name, because each load balancer has it's own list of balanced workers
with associated attributes. I expect no problem from a clash of names of
balanced workers in different balancing workers.
So there would be no need of having multiple jvmRoute for a single tomcat
instance.
> Well, I was thinking of using something like (truncated for clarity):
>
> # load balanced
> worker.lb_traditional.type=lb
> worker.lb_traditional.balance_workers=lb_worker1,lb_worker2
> worker.lb_traditional.sticky_session=true
>
> # workers 1 and 2 are load balanced
> worker.lb_worker1.type=ajp13
> worker.lb_worker1.host=server1
> worker.lb_worker1.domain=theJRMRoute
>
> worker.lb_worker2.type=ajp13
> worker.lb_worker2.host=server2
> worker.lb_worker2.domain=theJRMRoute
>
> # standby setup
> worker.lb_standby.type=lb
> worker.lb_standby.balance_workers=lb_worker3,lb_worker4
> worker.lb_standby.sticky_session=true
>
> # workers 4 is hot standby for worker 3
> worker.lb_worker3.type=ajp13
> worker.lb_worker3.host=server1
> worker.lb_worker3.domain=theJRMRoute
> worker.lb_worker3.redirect=worker4
>
> worker.lb_worker4.type=ajp13
> worker.lb_worker4.host=server2
> worker.lb_worker4.domain=theJRMRoute
> worker.lb_worker4.disabled=True
>
> Guernsey, Byron (GE Consumer & Industrial) wrote:
>> I believe you can specify the jvmRoute separately by using the domain
>> attribute, but I'm not sure I see how this would help?
>>
>> Byron
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mott Leroy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:03 AM
>> To: Tomcat Users List
>> Subject: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
>>
>> Due to some differences in our applications, some of them can be truly
>> load balanced, and some of them really cannot (yet). That is, some of
>> our applications can be (and have been) truly load balanced, and others
>> need (and only allow) simple failover support ("hot standby"). I noticed
>> that workers now support both possibilities (using "disabled" and
>> "redirect" flags to support "hot standby").
>>
>> What I'd like to do ultimately is have a "hot standby" load balancer and
>> as well as a "normal" load balancer, but it doesn't seem like that's
>> possible. From what I understand, you can really only have 1 load
>> balanced worker per tomcat instance because it must match the jvmRoute
>> of that instance -- having one worker that's disabled and one that's not
>> doesn't seem possible.
>>
>> So if I define a load balance worker as:
>>
>> # traditional load balance worker
>> worker.lb_tala_build.type=ajp13
>> worker.lb_tala_build.host=tala
>> worker.lb_tala_build.port=8000
>> worker.lb_tala_build.lbfactor=1
>> worker.lb_tala_build.socket_keepalive=1
>> worker.lb_tala_build.recycle_timeout=300
>>
>> I cannot really define a second load balanced worker like below (b/c no
>> matching jvmRoute)
>>
>> # a hot standby worker based on the worker above
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.type=ajp13
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.host=tala
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.port=8000
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.lbfactor=1
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.socket_keepalive=1
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.recycle_timeout=300
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.disabled=True
>>
>> Is anyone familiar with this setup of have any ideas how it could be
>> achieved? (the same problem exists for what would be the "Primary"
>> server, as it would need a worker that redirects and one that doesn't)
>>
>> Ps -
>>
>> Being able to specify the jvmRoute separately would solve this problem:
>>
>> worker.lb_tala_build2.jvmRoute=lb_tala_build
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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]
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
Well, I was thinking of using something like (truncated for clarity):
# load balanced
worker.lb_traditional.type=lb
worker.lb_traditional.balance_workers=lb_worker1,lb_worker2
worker.lb_traditional.sticky_session=true
# workers 1 and 2 are load balanced
worker.lb_worker1.type=ajp13
worker.lb_worker1.host=server1
worker.lb_worker1.domain=theJRMRoute
worker.lb_worker2.type=ajp13
worker.lb_worker2.host=server2
worker.lb_worker2.domain=theJRMRoute
# standby setup
worker.lb_standby.type=lb
worker.lb_standby.balance_workers=lb_worker3,lb_worker4
worker.lb_standby.sticky_session=true
# workers 4 is hot standby for worker 3
worker.lb_worker3.type=ajp13
worker.lb_worker3.host=server1
worker.lb_worker3.domain=theJRMRoute
worker.lb_worker3.redirect=worker4
worker.lb_worker4.type=ajp13
worker.lb_worker4.host=server2
worker.lb_worker4.domain=theJRMRoute
worker.lb_worker4.disabled=True
Guernsey, Byron (GE Consumer & Industrial) wrote:
I believe you can specify the jvmRoute separately by using the domain
attribute, but I'm not sure I see how this would help?
Byron
-Original Message-
From: Mott Leroy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:03 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
Due to some differences in our applications, some of them can be truly
load balanced, and some of them really cannot (yet). That is, some of
our applications can be (and have been) truly load balanced, and others
need (and only allow) simple failover support ("hot standby"). I noticed
that workers now support both possibilities (using "disabled" and
"redirect" flags to support "hot standby").
What I'd like to do ultimately is have a "hot standby" load balancer and
as well as a "normal" load balancer, but it doesn't seem like that's
possible. From what I understand, you can really only have 1 load
balanced worker per tomcat instance because it must match the jvmRoute
of that instance -- having one worker that's disabled and one that's not
doesn't seem possible.
So if I define a load balance worker as:
# traditional load balance worker
worker.lb_tala_build.type=ajp13
worker.lb_tala_build.host=tala
worker.lb_tala_build.port=8000
worker.lb_tala_build.lbfactor=1
worker.lb_tala_build.socket_keepalive=1
worker.lb_tala_build.recycle_timeout=300
I cannot really define a second load balanced worker like below (b/c no
matching jvmRoute)
# a hot standby worker based on the worker above
worker.lb_tala_build2.type=ajp13
worker.lb_tala_build2.host=tala
worker.lb_tala_build2.port=8000
worker.lb_tala_build2.lbfactor=1
worker.lb_tala_build2.socket_keepalive=1
worker.lb_tala_build2.recycle_timeout=300
worker.lb_tala_build2.disabled=True
Is anyone familiar with this setup of have any ideas how it could be
achieved? (the same problem exists for what would be the "Primary"
server, as it would need a worker that redirects and one that doesn't)
Ps -
Being able to specify the jvmRoute separately would solve this problem:
worker.lb_tala_build2.jvmRoute=lb_tala_build
-
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: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
I believe you can specify the jvmRoute separately by using the domain
attribute, but I'm not sure I see how this would help?
Byron
-Original Message-
From: Mott Leroy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:03 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: mod_jk: Hot Standby and Load Balance
Due to some differences in our applications, some of them can be truly
load balanced, and some of them really cannot (yet). That is, some of
our applications can be (and have been) truly load balanced, and others
need (and only allow) simple failover support ("hot standby"). I noticed
that workers now support both possibilities (using "disabled" and
"redirect" flags to support "hot standby").
What I'd like to do ultimately is have a "hot standby" load balancer and
as well as a "normal" load balancer, but it doesn't seem like that's
possible. From what I understand, you can really only have 1 load
balanced worker per tomcat instance because it must match the jvmRoute
of that instance -- having one worker that's disabled and one that's not
doesn't seem possible.
So if I define a load balance worker as:
# traditional load balance worker
worker.lb_tala_build.type=ajp13
worker.lb_tala_build.host=tala
worker.lb_tala_build.port=8000
worker.lb_tala_build.lbfactor=1
worker.lb_tala_build.socket_keepalive=1
worker.lb_tala_build.recycle_timeout=300
I cannot really define a second load balanced worker like below (b/c no
matching jvmRoute)
# a hot standby worker based on the worker above
worker.lb_tala_build2.type=ajp13
worker.lb_tala_build2.host=tala
worker.lb_tala_build2.port=8000
worker.lb_tala_build2.lbfactor=1
worker.lb_tala_build2.socket_keepalive=1
worker.lb_tala_build2.recycle_timeout=300
worker.lb_tala_build2.disabled=True
Is anyone familiar with this setup of have any ideas how it could be
achieved? (the same problem exists for what would be the "Primary"
server, as it would need a worker that redirects and one that doesn't)
Ps -
Being able to specify the jvmRoute separately would solve this problem:
worker.lb_tala_build2.jvmRoute=lb_tala_build
-
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]
