> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2002 19:35
> An: Tomcat Developers List
> Betreff: Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance
>
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote:
>
> > misunderstood it. After you said that my patch is included a
> had a closer look
> > at mod_jk. I can't see anything of my code but I found the
> special meaning of
> > the zero lb_factor/lb_value. It seems that I didn't understand
> it right at the
> > first time. This could solve my problem but after a closer look
> and some testing
> > I found another problem. When you set the lb_value in
> workers.properties to 1
> > for the local tomcat and 0 for the others, you get the desired
> behavior. But if
> > you switch off the local tomcat for a short time you come into
> trouble. The
> > problem is the 0 for the other workers. The calculation of
> lb_worker transforms
> > the 0 to _inf_. Because 1/0 for a double is _inf_. This is
> greater than any
Thats why we use values like 0.000001 in this situation in mod_jk1 and live
with the few lost sessions.
Somewhere in the tomcat-Dev archives I once saw a patch introducing a
'active' flag
for the lbfactor, but I never had the time to apply this patch and try it
out.
it was something like
worker.ajp13-01.lbfactor=1
worker.ajp13-01.active=0
in the workers.properties
(we already discussed this one in 2001 :)
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=100719342027584&w=4
>
> I think there is a piece that checks for 0 and sets it to DEFAULT_VALUE
> (==1 ) before doing 1/lb.
>
> While looking at the code - I'm not very sure this whole float is needed,
> I'll try to find a way to simplify it and use ints ( maybe 0..100 with
> some 'special' values for NEVER and ALLWAYS, or some additional flags ).
>
> But the way it works ( or at least how I understand it ) is that if the
> main worker fails, then we look at all workers in error state and try the
> one with the oldest error. And the 'main' worker will be tried again when
> the timeout expires.
>
>
> I haven't tested this too much, I just applied the patches ( that I
> understand :-), I'll add some more debugging for this process and maybe
> we can find a better solution.
>
> But this functionality is essential for the JNI worker and very important
> in general - so I really want to find the best solution. If you have any
> patch idea, let me know.
>
> To avoid further confusion and complexity in the lb-factor/value, I
> think we should add one more flag ( 'local_worker' ? ) and use it
> explicitely. Again, patches are wellcome - it's allways good to have
> different ( and more ) eyes looking at the code.
>
> ( that can go in both jk1, but I can't see a release of jk2 without this
> functionality )
>
> Costin
>
>
> > other lb_value and greater than the lb_value of the local
> tomcat. But after a
> > failure of the local tomcat he is in error_state. After some
> time its set to
> > recovering and if the local tomcat is back again the function
> jk(2)_get_max_lb
> > gets the highest lb_value. This is _inf_ from one of the other
> workers. The
> > addition of a value to _inf_ is meaningless. You end up with an
> lb_value of
> > _inf_ for the local worker. If this worker isn't the first in
> the worker list,
> > it will never be choosen again. Because his lb_value will never
> be less than
> > another lb_value, because all the other workers have _inf_ as
> theire lb_values.
> > So every request without a session will be routed to the first
> of the other
> > tomcats.
> >
> > The only way out is a restart of the local apache after tomcat
> is up and
> > running. But I don't know when tomcat is finished with all his
> contexts and
> > started the connectors.
> >
> > I didn't looked very deep into jk2, but I found the same
> > get_most_suitable_worker and get_max_lb functions. The
> jk2_get_max_lb function
> > will always return _inf_. In your answer to some other mails
> you said, that
> > workers could be removed. Do I understand it right, that if my
> local tomcat goes
> > down his worker is removed from the list and after he is
> comming up again added
> > to the worker list with reseted lb_value (only for mod_jk2)?
> >
> > The next days I will look in the docu and code of jk2 and give
> it a try. May be
> > all my problems gone away with the new module :).
> >
> > Sorry if I ask stupid questions, but I want to make it working
> for our new cluster.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Bernd
> >
> > > This is essential for jk2's JNI worker, which fits perfectly this case
> > > ( you don't want to send via TCP when you have a tomcat
> instance in the
> > > same process ).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>(2) Tomcat instances in standby or "soft shutdown" mode where
> they serve
> > >>requests bound by established sessions, and requests without
> a session only
> > >>if all non-standby instances have failed.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what the SHM scoreboard is going to do ( among other things ).
> > > You can register tomcat instances ( which will be added
> automatically ),
> > > or unregister - in which case no new requests ( except the
> old sessions )
> > > will go to the unregistered tomcat.
> > >
> > >
> > > Costin
> > >
> > >
> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>some weeks ago I send a patch for mod_jk for an only
> routing lb_worker. A
> > >>>
> > >>few
> > >>
> > >>>>days later I sent the docu. Henry Gomez said, that it
> should be commited.
> > >>>
> > >>But it
> > >>
> > >>>>I think it isn't in the repository. But its the same with
> me here, to
> > >>>
> > >>mutch
> > >>
> > >>>>work for to less time :).
> > >>>
> > >>>I think it is in mod_jk, I remember seeing the commit.
> > >>>
> > >>>And I think I commited it in jk2 as well ( after some
> modifications ).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I need sticky sessions but no loadbalancing in the module.
> If a request
> > >>>
> > >>without
> > >>
> > >>>>a session comes in, it should be routed to the _local_ tomcat.
> > >>>
> > >>>Well, there is another use-case with the exact same behavior
> - Apache2
> > >>>with tomcat in JNI mode. All requests without session should
> be routed to
> > >>>the _jni_ channel ( i.e. in-process, minimal overhead ).
> > >>>
> > >>>It's exacly the same - so be sure I do my best to handle
> this case :-)
> > >>>
> > >>>Apache2 acts like a 'natural' load-balancer/fail-over, with
> the parent
> > >>>process monitoring for crashes and it starts/stop childs based on
> > >>>load.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I think this could be possible with the associated instance
> of a channel
> > >>>
> > >>(item
> > >>
> > >>>>7). Then I have to configure all four nodes for the same
> group. Because
> > >>>
> > >>all
> > >>
> > >>>>nodes will serve the same webapps and associate the channel
> with this
> > >>>
> > >>group. But
> > >>
> > >>>>for this I need a non balancing group. I don't see if the default
> > >>>
> > >>behavior of a
> > >>
> > >>>>group is balancing and if this can be switched off. Is this
> right or do I
> > >>>
> > >>miss
> > >>
> > >>>>something?
> > >>>
> > >>>The default is balancing, but you can tune this using
> weithgs ( and I
> > >>>think we use your code for making one instance 'top priority').
> > >>>
> > >>>Please check the code, take a look and send additional
> comments/patches.
> > >>>
> > >>>It's not yet completely done, of course.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Thanks,
> > >>>Costin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
