On Thu, 2 May 2002, Amund Elstad wrote: > (1) all requests without a session are routed to a specific tomcat instance > (if that instance is working).
That has been added, and it should work in both jk1 and jk2 ( I don't remember who sent the patch, but I remember adding it ). If it doesn't work yet, is easy to fix. 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]>
