Hi all, recently I stumbled over the mod_jk statusworker feature coming with recent mod_jk versions and, of course, I immediately wanted to have such neat thing :-)
Up to that time, I didn't saw an imperative need to have balanced wor- kers (Apache+Tomcat on the same machine; one single ajp13 type worker did his job fine for me so far). Since it turned out that the status worker will talk to lb type workers only, I simply renamed my existing ajp13 worker, then established another lb type worker of the former name which itself "sits" now on that ajp13 type (or "node") worker. But here I'm asking myself: Where do I preferably apply those "more sophisticated" settings like worker.XY.recycle_timeout, worker.XY.cachesize or worker.XY.cache_timeout ?? (seems that we can assign them both to lb type as to ajp13 type workers; at least I didn't found anything that rules out doing so in the online docs) In other words, do they a better job when defined with worker "MyWorker" or with "node1" in the following httpd.conf example (simplified view; think yourself a "JkWorkerProperty" in front of all these "worker..." directives): worker.list=MyWorker worker.MyWorker.type=lb worker.MyWorker.balance_workers=node1 worker.node1.type=ajp13 worker.node1.host=localhost worker.node1.port=8009 <Location /MyContext > JkMount MyWorker </Location> ?? Some of that worker.XY... options sound more "IP related", so I would tend to assign them to ajp13 type workers; on the other hand, worker.XY.cachesize seems to have more impact to the endpoint software layer, which implies that it unfolds it's effect better within the load balancer tier. TIA Regards Olaf Lautenschlaeger -- ANOVA Multimedia Studios GmbH Joachim-Jungius-Strasse 9 D-18059 Rostock / Germany --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
