On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:28 AM, André Warnier wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
[...]
What remains for me is your suggestion, that the error is not a fatal
one, since there are other balanced workers left. We could include
such
a check in the startup code, although I'm not really convinced, that
your
On 17.04.2009 21:44, David Fisher wrote:
> Rainer -
>
> Wouldn't this type of dynamics occur if your workers were in a cloud? Or
> if you needed a lot more very quickly for peak processing?
Yes, but then you should extend your dynamics to your other
configurations as well. In fact there are tende
Rainer -
Wouldn't this type of dynamics occur if your workers were in a cloud?
Or if you needed a lot more very quickly for peak processing?
Am I correct to think that if someone is being so "dynamic" with their
worker's DNS configuration then they should automate using the status
worker
On 17.04.2009 18:02, André Warnier wrote:
> To my knowledge, the only case where the DNS would fail to provide an IP
> address of a correctly-written FQDN name, is if you have some
> configuration where your hosts register themselves under some variable
> IP address when they startup. But that wou
David Fisher wrote:
An interesting discussion. Since I am about to configure such a load
balancer and we prefer to use DNS, understanding this type of detail is
critical.
The OP said that the reason that the DNS did not resolve was that the
machine had been moved off the network. That may hav
Hi,
I understand that when it comes to security you do not want to start the
service eg. if the certificate is corrupted you do not want the ssl server
to start or if Apache cannot bind to the hostname then it cannot
start, etc... .
However, in this case there can be a few reasons why a tomcat s
An interesting discussion. Since I am about to configure such a load
balancer and we prefer to use DNS, understanding this type of detail
is critical.
The OP said that the reason that the DNS did not resolve was that the
machine had been moved off the network. That may have been an event
Rainer Jung wrote:
[...]
What remains for me is your suggestion, that the error is not a fatal
one, since there are other balanced workers left. We could include such
a check in the startup code, although I'm not really convinced, that
your problem is a good reason for this.
I'm open to more arg
On 16.04.2009 17:55, Scott Bradshaw wrote:
> Still continuing to guess..
>> This is about efficiency.
>> If mod_jk had to do a DNS lookup each time it wants to send a packet to a
>> backend Tomcat (or at least each time it wants to create a new connection to
>> a backend Tomcat), that would be very
Still continuing to guess..
>
> This is about efficiency.
> If mod_jk had to do a DNS lookup each time it wants to send a packet to a
> backend Tomcat (or at least each time it wants to create a new connection to
> a backend Tomcat), that would be very inefficient.
>
> So, instead, mod_jk stores th
Scott Bradshaw wrote:
Yep - you are right on.
The machine was taken off the network and moved to a test network for a few
days. It currently does not resolve. If I change the host to its old IP
address (which does not respond), the system starts up just fine.
I would expect to see an error in t
Yep - you are right on.
The machine was taken off the network and moved to a test network for a few
days. It currently does not resolve. If I change the host to its old IP
address (which does not respond), the system starts up just fine.
I would expect to see an error in the log, but just because
If we just stick to the actual error message for a moment, and assume it
means what it says :
>> worker mygpgby06 can't resolve tomcat address mygpgby06.mycompany.com
the first question would be : why can the DNS name
"mygpgby06.mycompany.com" not be /resolved/ to an IP address when host
"mygpg
/portal/*=loadbalancerprod
The uriworkermap.properties file is correct - workers are correctly sent to
it assuming all the workers are accessible.
The problem is when the workers in the load balancer are being initialized,
if one worker is not available, the load balance worker is considered not
Your workers.properties looks fine.
What is the content of uriworkermap.proeprties ?
-Original Message-
From: swbrads...@gmail.com [mailto:swbrads...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Scott Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:51 PM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: JK 1.2.28 - load balanc
15 matches
Mail list logo
