Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
*Problem1*
When testing Sticky session, my browser locks unto a particular
cluster member (e.g. node1) due to the nodeid in the cookie. If I kill
node1, the session fails over into node2 and all my session data is
still present. This is g
Hi Gianny,
Thanks for the ping. I would be happy to engage and walk through some
ideas, etc. But you hit the nail on the head...I am working hard on
trying to get us to J1 - so many hours in the day! ;-)
I am with you all the way on offering a more robust solution and am in
complete alignment o
Hi,
Jeff, I do know that you are working hard on preparing the release of
G1.1; however, when you get more time, could you please try to expand a
little bit on this subject?
I am curious to see how the Session API has been implemented and how it
is leveraged to provide clustering capabilitie
Jeff Genender wrote:
Hi Matthew,
Ultimately clustering should not be based on WADI directly, but for
components that implement the session API interface. We want to make
clustering components pluggable, so there is no hard coded clustering agent.
With my WADI hat on:
Agreed - this is the
On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
IIRC, the 5.5.16 issues had to do with cross context stuff that David
Jencks and I worked pretty diligently on to fix. So I would
probably be
apt to push a -1 on 5.5.16 for 1.1.
Jeff or David, can you be more specific on the issue with 5.5
Thanks Filip!!
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
5.5.15,16,17 has some new features, like the JvmRouteBinderValve, that
will rewrite the session id for a new node when a node crashes.
This is an important feature. The coordination error that you ran into I
am not yet sure why it is happening, henc
5.5.15,16,17 has some new features, like the JvmRouteBinderValve, that
will rewrite the session id for a new node when a node crashes.
This is an important feature. The coordination error that you ran into I
am not yet sure why it is happening, hence I can't comment on it, and I
don't know if it
Jeff Genender wrote:
I would vote for not moving to 5.5.16 for 1.1. IMHO, its too close. We
did some preliminary testing for 5.5.15 and it seems ok...and we will
know in the next several days if its good to bake in to 1.1.
Filip,
How significant are the 5.5.15 bugs that you alluded to?
On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Hmmm.. What level of Tomcat does the community want to include in
G1.1?
Background...
Tomcat 5.5.9 - current working level in G1.0 and G1.1.. Clustering
works.. TCK is testing with this level..
Tomcat 5.5.10-5.5.14 - clustering is brok
I would vote for not moving to 5.5.16 for 1.1. IMHO, its too close. We
did some preliminary testing for 5.5.15 and it seems ok...and we will
know in the next several days if its good to bake in to 1.1. 5.5.9 is
fine to stick with since its pretty stable and it just works, and in the
event 5.5.15
Hmmm.. What level of Tomcat does the community want to include in G1.1?
Background...
Tomcat 5.5.9 - current working level in G1.0 and G1.1.. Clustering
works.. TCK is testing with this level..
Tomcat 5.5.10-5.5.14 - clustering is broken
Tomcat 5.5.15 - Clustering seems to work somewhat. We
looks like you are right, there where some other fixes in .16 that were
important, so it may be better to use that one.
seems like you got a coordination error, ie, node1 requested state from
node2, but node2 didn't know about node1, and that caused the stack
trace from below.
Filip
Dave Col
Thanks Filip!!
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-users/200512.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
seems to indicate that it is fixed in 5.5.15..
Is it fixed in 5.5.15 or 5.5.16?
Thanks
-Dave-
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Clustering was broken in Tomcat 5.5.10-5.5.15 due to a protocol chan
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Jeff,
Upgraded tomcat, tomcat_ajp and jasper to 5.5.15 and ran the
clustering tests.
The *good* news...
Load balancing, sticky session, session replication and session
failover seem to work using the same deployment plan that was created
for G1.1 w/ TC 5.5.9..
The *
Clustering was broken in Tomcat 5.5.10-5.5.15 due to a protocol change,
this was corrected in 5.5.16.
I would run the tests again that version, and then I can help you out
with any problems you run into.
Filip
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Jeff,
Upgraded tomcat, tomcat_ajp and jasper to 5.5.15 and
Jeff,
Upgraded tomcat, tomcat_ajp and jasper to 5.5.15 and ran the clustering
tests.
The *good* news...
Load balancing, sticky session, session replication and session
failover seem to work using the same deployment plan that was created
for G1.1 w/ TC 5.5.9..
The *bad* news...
*Problem1
Thanks Jeff,
I will need to have a production quality deployment of Geronimo
ready within the next couple of months. One of the requirements is to
have some level of cluster node management facility. Initially my
thoughts are web service and WSDM/JMX mixes. If you are currently
working on s
Hi Matthew,
Ultimately clustering should not be based on WADI directly, but for
components that implement the session API interface. We want to make
clustering components pluggable, so there is no hard coded clustering agent.
I am unaware of WADI's status regarding its implementation of the
sess
Jeff, Dave,
I would like to implement a Geronimo Cluster Management Web Service
and need some additional information on the advances of WADI
integration. The current clustering examples seem to only be concerned
with tomcat web tier clustering and doesn't seem to use WADI to
facilitate the
Dave,
Thanks for doing this.
Jeff
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
> I've validated that the Geronimo clustering example
> (http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/GERONIMO/Geronimo+Clustering+Example)
> still works for Geronimo 1.1 (with Tomcat 5.5.9). The application
> deployment plan (a
I've validated that the Geronimo clustering example
(http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/GERONIMO/Geronimo+Clustering+Example)
still works for Geronimo 1.1 (with Tomcat 5.5.9). The application
deployment plan (attached to email) required some changes.
I'm now rebuilding G1
IIRC, 5.5.15 went to backward compatibility...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-users/200512.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Perhaps Filip can fill us in on this.
If I remember right, the 5.5.9 clustering GBeans will work on forward
versions. So I don't think there is a problem there. H
Jeff (et al.),
Will G1.1 definitely be upgraded to Tomcat 5.5.15?
IIRC, the clustering deployment plans were quite different for 5.5.9
-vs- 5.5.12. If we upgrade to 5.5.15, we will likely need a new plan
that accounts for both the webcontainer upgrade as well as the new G1.1
plan format..
IIRC, David Jencks had pinged me and pointed out something in 5.5.16
(not the samples - the app itself) may have changed that would cause us
a bit of heart pain - I don't recall exactly what it was, but I remember
looking at it and thinking, "Ohhh...yeah...that may be a problem". So I
wanted to re
Thanks for the update Rainer.
As Geronimo 1.1 includes an early copy of the 5.5.16 examples, I'd like
to verify there is no Geronimo issue here. Is the problem limited to:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39041
If so, shouldn't be a problem for Geronimo..
Thanks
-Dave-
Ra
Thanks Rainer. But I think 5.5.15 will be the one for 1.1. But
possibly 5.5.17 for 1.2 ;-)
Jeff
Rainer Jung wrote:
> Just for your information: 5.5.16 was released a couple of weeks ago,
> but has some problems with de delivered packaginf of examples app under
> windows.
>
> 5.5.17 is expected
Just for your information: 5.5.16 was released a couple of weeks ago,
but has some problems with de delivered packaginf of examples app under
windows.
5.5.17 is expected to be cut on friday and voted stable eventually 1-2
weeks later.
Jeff Genender wrote:
Yep...need to update the plan. Its
Yep...need to update the plan. Its updated in trunk.
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
> It appears that G1.1 is still using Tomcat 5.5.9
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1/etc/project.properties
>
>
>
> Wasn't a tomcat upgrade to 5.5.15 in plan for G1.1?? Perhaps I am
> confused
It appears that G1.1 is still using Tomcat 5.5.9
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1/etc/project.properties
Wasn't a tomcat upgrade to 5.5.15 in plan for G1.1?? Perhaps I am
confused with the plans for trunk.. ??
Thanks
-Dave-
29 matches
Mail list logo
