On 05/25/2012 11:28 AM, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Mladen Turk<mt...@apache.org> wrote:
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just changed between .35 and
.36
OK, but if you follow the recommended configuration
by making sure that workers which are members of lb are not
listed inside worker.list, does it works?
The question is, is this a recommendation or a restriction that
should be enforced? Maybe a warning about this, apparently common,
[mis-]configuration should be issued at module configuration time?
Hmm, I still didn't get the response if it works in case
member workers are not in the worker.list.
But you are right. Before 1.2.36 we just created another worker
slot in shared memory. Now it's allocated 'by name' so it can
create problems if the same name is declared both as standalone
ajp13 worker and load balancer member.
I'm sure that once we had 'must not be in worker.list',
but someone changed that to 'should' inside
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/workers.html
(see balance_workers directive)
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
