Thank you for both!
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
> Am 12.07.2016 um 19:44 schrieb Wayne Li:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a servlet/jsp application running on tomcat 7.0.47. There are no
>> static html files.
>> Now I am try to use apache 2.4.7 (Ubuntu)
>> as the front and forward
Am 12.07.2016 um 19:44 schrieb Wayne Li:
Hi,
I have a servlet/jsp application running on tomcat 7.0.47. There are no
static html files.
Now I am try to use apache 2.4.7 (Ubuntu)
as the front and forward eveything to tomcat. I installed mod_jk using
Ubuntu's software
center.. Things are working.
On 12.07.2016 19:44, Wayne Li wrote:
Hi,
I have a servlet/jsp application running on tomcat 7.0.47. There are no
static html files.
Now I am try to use apache 2.4.7 (Ubuntu)
as the front and forward eveything to tomcat. I installed mod_jk using
Ubuntu's software
center.. Things are working. But
Hi,
I have a servlet/jsp application running on tomcat 7.0.47. There are no
static html files.
Now I am try to use apache 2.4.7 (Ubuntu)
as the front and forward eveything to tomcat. I installed mod_jk using
Ubuntu's software
center.. Things are working. But I have errors in
/var/log/apache2/mod_j
Thank you Rainer, it was very helpful.
Sorry for late answer.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 14.02.2013 14:17, Philippe Bossu wrote:
> > We have a mod_jk in version 1.2.28 with Apache 2.16 fronting a Tomcat
> > server in version 6 on JDK6.
> >
> > We are facing long re
On 14.02.2013 14:17, Philippe Bossu wrote:
> We have a mod_jk in version 1.2.28 with Apache 2.16 fronting a Tomcat
> server in version 6 on JDK6.
>
> We are facing long response times and timeouts from time to time.
> Mod_jk log files show the following errors:
>
> [][X] [error]
mation seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement
> obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la
> manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le
> contenu fourni.
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:
us ne
pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:17:10 +0100
> Subject: mod_jk errors errno=110 and errno=115
> From: pbo...@gmail.com
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
>
> Hello,
>
> We have a mod_jk in version 1.2.28 with Apache
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt,
On 1/22/2010 5:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> In between times I tried the ProxyPass which seems to work fine, but I'd much
> rather use plain AJP so I'll try that next.
AJP is the protocol used by both mod_jk and mod_proxy_ajp (which is what
you
010 14:53:21 -0500
> From: ch...@christopherschultz.net
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mod_jk errors with tomcat 6.0.20 and Apache 2.0.52
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matt,
>
> On 1/22/2010 9:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt,
On 1/22/2010 9:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> In my case sometimes I do need to pass through the SSL to Tomcat, as
> I'm running CAS which requires geniune SSL requests.
mod_jk ought to be able to forward all SSL information to Tomcat.
Specificall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
On 1/22/2010 7:49 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
> - You're telling AJP to use a secure connection between httpd and Tomcat;
AJP doesn't recognize any "secure" connection capability for its own
communication. As you've said, AJP /does/ forward SSL
Am Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:25:11 +
schrieb Matt Turner :
> The SSL pass-through requirement explains why I was attempting to
> pass through to :8443 directly - but it sounds like that's the wrong
> approach.
If it isn't possible to move the SSL-certificate and -keys to the
Apache2 (and change the
ataneo.eu
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mod_jk errors with tomcat 6.0.20 and Apache 2.0.52
>
> I guess that you should exchange the "JkMount /* tomcatssl" by
> "JkMount /* tomcat1" provided you use a "standard" Tomcat-setup.
>
> For a parallel
I guess that you should exchange the "JkMount /* tomcatssl" by
"JkMount /* tomcat1" provided you use a "standard" Tomcat-setup.
For a parallel SSL- + Non-SSL-Setup using Apache2 you basically need 2
virtual-hosts in Apache2. One for Port 443 with the
standard-SSL-parameters Apache2 expects to inte
OK - sounds likely, many thanks.
I'll give that a whirl.
> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:49:49 +
> Subject: Re: mod_jk errors with tomcat 6.0.20 and Apache 2.0.52
> From: peter.crowt...@melandra.com
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
>
> I'm not an AJP expert, but I su
I'm not an AJP expert, but I suspect:
- You're telling AJP to use a secure connection between httpd and Tomcat;
- The Tomcat connector on port 8443 is a SSL connector, not an AJP connector;
- AJP is getting confused.
I believe you should only need to configure one worker (the one on
8009); AJP is
Hi All,
I have an existing Apache 2.0.52 installation, and a new tomcat 6.0.20
installation.
They are both sitting on the same Linux box - uname -a returns the following:
Linux [machine name] 2.6.9-55.ELsmp #1 SMP Fri Apr 20 16:36:54 EDT 2007 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I'd like if
Hi Damien,
Damien Corbishley wrote:
Good morning Rainer,
bash-3.00# /usr/local/apache2/bin/httpd -V
Server version: Apache/2.0.55
Server built: Mar 5 2007 11:10:17
Server's Module Magic Number: 20020903:11
Architecture: 32-bit
Server compiled with
-D APACHE_MPM_DIR="server/mpm/worker"
urrently using jmeter to try and re-produce the problem in our lab
before I update anything - just so I can be sure if I have solved the
issue.
May I get back to you later if I am still having issues?
Damien
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
starting point (and maybe
it will be gone).
Damien
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Jung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:42 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk errors and http status code 503 under load
Damien Corbishley wrote:
Hi,
I'm gettin
o: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk errors and http status code 503 under load
Damien Corbishley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm getting stuck with an error we are seeing on our production
> server under load.
>
> We upgraded our combination of Apache,Tomcat,Java all running on
> S
Or if the two errors are unrelated and it was coincidence that we
panicked whilst having mod_jk errors.
Any help/pointers in resolving the mod_jk error would be appreciated,
I included the brief crash information as it may be relevant.
Thanks
Damien
Regards,
Rainer
---
om of the browsers
resubmitting the failed requests and we've hit a Solaris bug that we
haven't got a patch for,
Or if the two errors are unrelated and it was coincidence that we
panicked whilst having mod_jk errors.
Any help/pointers in resolving the mod_jk error would be appreciat
> -Original Message-
> From: michael thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:42 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: TomcatUsers: Re: mod_jk errors - are these normal?
>
> --- Sven K�hler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
&
--- Sven K�hler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 2006] [error]
> > ajp_connection_tcp_get_message::jk_ajp_common.c
> (961):
> > Can't receive the response message from tomcat,
> > network problems or tomcat is down
> (10.0.0.9:8009),
> > err=-113
> > [Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 20
--- Sven K�hler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 2006] [error]
> > ajp_connection_tcp_get_message::jk_ajp_common.c
> (961):
> > Can't receive the response message from tomcat,
> > network problems or tomcat is down
> (10.0.0.9:8009),
> > err=-113
> > [Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 2006]
> The system seems to work fine from a user's
> perspective, but we still occasionally get these:
>
> [Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 2006] [error]
> ajp_connection_tcp_get_message::jk_ajp_common.c (961):
> Can't receive the response message from tomcat,
> network problems or tomcat is down (10.0.0.9:8009),
If our setup was completely stable, and configured
perfectly, should there be NO mod_jk errors ever?
Or, are some errors part of normal operation?
The system seems to work fine from a user's
perspective, but we still occasionally get these:
[Wed Mar 01 20:00:42 2006] [
29 matches
Mail list logo
