On 13.11.2009 21:41, ndunn1979 wrote: > > I left them off because they were the same. The only difference is they are a > second apart. > > [Fri Nov 13 08:32:07.359 2009] [1916:2244] [debug] jk_ajp_common.c (1259): > 0000 03 1F F8 61 63 74 69 6F 6E 3D 31 26 6E 61 6D 65 - ...action=1&name > > [Fri Nov 13 08:32:08.218 2009] [1916:2244] [debug] jk_ajp_common.c (1259): > 0000 03 1F F8 61 63 74 69 6F 6E 3D 31 26 6E 61 6D 65 - ...action=1&name
I see. > Rainer Jung-3 wrote: >> >> Hmmm, that one I'm not sure, because after the "inde" there are only >> null bytes. Since the beginning of the packet is not shown, I'm not >> sure, but likely the "inde" was just the end of the body data of the AJP >> packet. >> > > I agree. I was just pointing out the fact that if you ignore the null bytes, > the body content continues in the next packet after the header information > for the two "working" packets. > > > Rainer Jung-3 wrote: >> >> The bytes after "inde" are all "00", could simply be the end of gthe >> packet body. >> > > That makes sense. > > > Rainer Jung-3 wrote: >> >> Right, that looks wierd. I assume you didn't leave any line in theis >> block out from the mail. >> > > That's correct, it's in the log the same way. > > So is there any way to trace Tomcat to see how it's handling the requests > from mod_jk? You can increase the log level of the connector code. Depending on your exact connectors, set Log Level for org.apache.jk, org.apache.ajp, org.apache.coyote to debug. BTW: Do you use the tomcat native connector? If so, try whether the problem comes from tcnative. Regards, rainer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
