mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Hello, I have tried to configure mod_jk as a load balancer WITH sticky sessions. I get the load balancing to work perfectly, but NOT the sticky sessions. This is what I tried: I set up 4 ajp13 workers and 2 lb workers. Worker names are t1_a, t1_b, t2_a and t2_b. Load balancer names are a and b, and they point to: a -- t1_a, t2_a b -- t1_b, t2_b t1_a -- tomcat 1 port X t1_b -- tomcat 1 port Y t2_a -- tomcat 2 port X t2_b -- tomcat 2 port Y On Tomcat 1, jvmRoute is t1. On Tomcat 2, jvmRoute is t2. (So, jvmRoutes are set-up). Am I missing something very obvious? Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... Thank you for any tip. Yours, Antonio Fiol P.S.: I am using two connectors on each Tomcat because one is configured with scheme=http secure=false, and the other is scheme=https secure=true. Our app relies upon that. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
On Wed, February 4, 2004 1at 1:31 am, Antonio Fiol Bonnín wrote: Am I missing something very obvious? Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... Yes, they do. -Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Hi, You can try out these step-by-step instructions: http://www.yorku.ca/dkha/tomcat/docs/apache-tomcat-modjk.htm Regards, Daniel On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Antonio Fiol Bonnín wrote: Hello, I have tried to configure mod_jk as a load balancer WITH sticky sessions. I get the load balancing to work perfectly, but NOT the sticky sessions. This is what I tried: I set up 4 ajp13 workers and 2 lb workers. Worker names are t1_a, t1_b, t2_a and t2_b. Load balancer names are a and b, and they point to: a -- t1_a, t2_a b -- t1_b, t2_b t1_a -- tomcat 1 port X t1_b -- tomcat 1 port Y t2_a -- tomcat 2 port X t2_b -- tomcat 2 port Y On Tomcat 1, jvmRoute is t1. On Tomcat 2, jvmRoute is t2. (So, jvmRoutes are set-up). Am I missing something very obvious? Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... Thank you for any tip. Yours, Antonio Fiol P.S.: I am using two connectors on each Tomcat because one is configured with scheme=http secure=false, and the other is scheme=https secure=true. Our app relies upon that. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Thank you, Dave. Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? Yes, they do. Then that means I cannot have two AJP connectors on each Tomcat. Proposed setup is, then: Worker names are t1 and t2 Load balancer name is t: t -- t1, t2 t1 -- tomcat 1 port X (jvmRoute=t1) t2 -- tomcat 2 port X (jvmRoute=t2) On Apache I have: VirtualHost hostname:80 ... JkMount /myapp/* t #was a /VirtualHost VirtualHost hostname:443 ... JkMount /myapp/* t #was b /VirtualHost Or, if we remove the hassle of load balancing, I can just JkMount /myapp/* t1, which is what I initially had (several months ago). But then... How do I get request.isSecure() and request.getScheme() working properly? I.e. How can I detect whether the user is coming in through HTTP or HTTPS? They ALWAYS return false and http respectively, regardless of what protocol the user used. Previously, I did it by adding secure=true scheme=https to one connector on each Tomcat. Now I cannot, as I only have one connector!! Thank you for any further guidance. Antonio Fiol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
