This might be more helpful. http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-3.3-doc/mod_jk-howto.html
Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hemant Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Configuring Multiple Tomcat JVMs with Apache - Load Balancing | Hi Tom | | in my application i want two servers(tomcat 3.2.3) residing on two different | machines to cater to requests coming another different machinewhich keeps | forwarding the requests to either of the servers.Pls guide how can i achieve | the same.I have added two workers in in my workers.properties on the | dispatcher machine , but it keeps sending the request to only the first | machine. | | --Hemant | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Tom Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:17 PM | Subject: Re: Configuring Multiple Tomcat JVMs with Apache - Load Balancing | | | > When my work is done, Session Affinity will not be required in order to | > acheive load balancing. However, we should still want to use session | > affinity in our load balancing solution(s) for the simple reason that | > it will perform better. | > | > However, the session affinity between Apache and Tomcat 3 locks | > a user (based on her JSESSIONID) to a single Tomcat instance. Once | > the distributed session management solution is in place, Apache should | > 'prefer' NOT 'force' tomcat instance routing. This gives us a real | fail-over | > story. Administrators will be able to bring down Tomcat instances without | > blowing away 'logged in' users. | > | > Tom | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Cc: "Tomcat Users List (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:54 AM | > Subject: RE: Configuring Multiple Tomcat JVMs with Apache - Load Balancing | > | > | > | >there hasn't been done anything on that topic yet ? What's | > | >the status of | > | >loadbalacing, either mod_jk or mod_webapp ? | > | >Is that political due to if loadbalacing is working properly | > | >there won't be | > | >any reason to take (buy) anything else than TC ? | > | | > | State of the art is that today only mod_jk could | > | handle load-balancing and only when connected | > | to Tomcat 3.2.x or 3.3. | > | | > | Tomcat 4.0.x support ajp13 protocol, used in mod_jk | > | but still miss a subtil feature (jvmroute) to be | > | able to keep the route to the good JVM in | > | session mode (SessionAfinity). | > | | > | But the current refactory of ajp protocol, | > | under ajp14 in jakarta-tomcat-connectors, will | > | fix somedays thanks to Costin and Kevin works :))) | > | | > | -- | > | To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | | > | | > | | > | > | > -- | > To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | | | -- | To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
