Would you either A) Not sign posts to the group
Or B) Sign the posts with a working certificate? Everytime I hit one of your messages, it locks my mail client up for 30 seconds. Warning: The Certificate Revocation List needed to verify the signing certificate is either unavailable or it has expired. Signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] using RSA/SHA1 at 12:48:09 AM 3/16/2004. -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Fiol Bonnín [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:48 AM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: Load balancing for uptime Hi, To keep it up, you will need to setup session replication (See your Cluster element in server.xml), either in-memory or JDBC. Both are supposed to work. However, that implies several things: - Your session must contain Seralizable objects only. - Your performance will be worse (how much worse highly depends on the size of the objects in your session) And... nobody guarantees that your memory leak (if there is one) is not related to the information stored in sessions. Depending on your load balancer, there is another option (IMHO, better for your case). There are some load balancers that allow you to turn a server down while keeping it up for currently established sessions, for a certain time. That allows you NOT to use session replication, thus not replicating any instability related to sessions. Oh, and last, if you need a good consultant for fixing, optimizing or redesigning your application, you just found one ;-) Yours, Antonio Fiol Derek Clarkson wrote: >Hi all, > We have an app written in a mix of JSP, servlets and struts across 3 >instances of apache, tomcat and an RMI server. To say that it's a pile of >smelly stuff is an understatement, however it works (mostly) and our >customers depend on it. At least once a week though it crashes with out of >memory errors. > >Until we can redesign and fix it we are looking for a way to keep it up. One >suggest has been to have two servers running with a common DB server, and to >use a load balancer to allow us to keep one server up whilst we boot the >other, then vice versa. Thus on a daily basis we can reboot both machines >whilst mainting a working system for the users. > >Can anyone see any problems with this ? I'm concerned about issue realed to >session management, etc. > >Ciao >Derek > > >______________________________________________________________________ >This email, including attachments, is intended only for the addressee >and may be confidential, privileged and subject to copyright. If you >have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete >it. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not >use, copy or disclose its content to anyone. You must not copy or >communicate to others content that is confidential or subject to >copyright, unless you have the consent of the content owner. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
