Of course you are right (and for me it seems to be too late today). So I agree: you either find out how to use different jvmRoutes in a single instance or you try to find a workarounf with the domain attribute:
If a load balancer does not find a worker with the correct name (=jvmRoute), it will next use a worker whose domain name is equal to the jvmRoute. But this will not be very efficient, because every request will first look for the "correct" worker and only after that check for the domain. Also I'm not sure, how this "second class worker" will behave, if you stopp it with respect to it's redirect etc. attributes. Sorry! > Rainer Jung wrote: >> The balanced workers behind lb1, lb2 etc. are allowed to have the same >> name, because each load balancer has it's own list of balanced workers >> with associated attributes. I expect no problem from a clash of names of >> balanced workers in different balancing workers. > > I must be missing something obvious here. I am with you on the JKMount > part, but I just don't see how the name clash isn't an issue for > worker.properties. Simplifying again ... > > # as per your suggestion ... where "worker1" and "worker2" are jvmRoutes > worker.lb1.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 > worker.lb2.balanced_workers=worker1,worker2 > > # the balanced workers ... which should they choose ... ? > worker.worker1 (failover version) > worker.worker1 (not failover version) > worker.worker2 (standby version) > worker.worker2 (non-standby version) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
