You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> on 2005/02/15 08:58:11 UTC
JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Hi,
I would like to deprecate the local_worker and local_worker_only
directives.
The reason is that we have now shared memory, and thus more powerful
ways to accomplish it's use.
Now, we two new directives 'redirect' and 'domain' that are more
powerful then exiting ones.
Here is how it works:
1. If there is a session the request is routed to the worker.
2. If there is no session and the worker is disabled, meaning not
accepting new connections then the request is redirected to
the 'redirect' router if present or 'domain' if not.
3. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
the 'sticky_session_force' is not set then the 'redirect'
and 'domain' are checked.
4. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
the 'sticky_session_force' is set the 500 is returned.
Here is the simple state table:
('x' means don't care, '-' means not set)
----------------------------------------------------------------
| worker | session | route | domain | force | err | dis | result |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | w1 | x | x | x | 0 | x | w1 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | w1 | x | x | 1 | 1 | x | 500 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | w1 | w2 | x | 0 | 1 | x | w2 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | w1 | - | grp | 0 | 1 | x | grp |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 0 | any |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | - | - | grp | x | 0 | 0 | grp |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 1 | !w1 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
So, basically the local_worker_only will become 'sticky_session_force',
that is more descriptive meaning of the actual usage.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Hello Mladen,
no, the redirect domain feature don't work for me.
Here my configuration:
worker.list=lb,status
worker.node1.port=9012
worker.node1.host=localhost
worker.node1.type=ajp13
worker.node1.disabled=true
worker.node1.domain=B
worker.node2.port=9022
worker.node2.host=localhost
worker.node2.type=ajp13
worker.node2.disabled=false
worker.node2.domain=A
worker.node2.redirect=B
worker.node3.port=9032
worker.node3.host=localhost
worker.node3.type=ajp13
worker.node3.disabled=false
worker.node3.domain=A
worker.node3.redirect=B
worker.lb.balance_workers=node1,node2,node3
worker.lb.type=lb
worker.status.type=status
Both described szenarios (last email) don't work with the domain
redirect config.
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Peter Rossbach wrote:
>
>> Morning Mladen,
>>
>> I have build with newest patch and the redirect working well. Thanks :-)
>
>
> Great.
>
>> But the same szenario with domains don't work
>>
>
> You will still need the redirect for hot-standby to work.
> It's just like for workers, except that instead worker
> name the domain is used, so you can have multiple
> failover boxes.
>
>
> worker.node1.domain=A
> worker.node1.redirect=B
>
> worker.node2.domain=A
> worker.node2.redirect=B
>
> worker.node3.domain=B
>
>
> Tell me if it's work.
>
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> Hello Mladen,
>
> Great, now my cluster hot standby works as aspected. Thanks for your
> quick help!
Well, AFAICT you are commiter too, so, feel free to commit any changes
that will fit better ;).
>
> How can I force a autoreloading with update the workers.properties,
> without gracefull restart the apache?
>
Can not. Only JkMountFile can be reloaded at runtime.
For such a feature we will need AJP14 and something
completely different then mod_jk.
If you wish to add new worker at runtime, you will either
have to predict that, and add disabled worker in config
or restart the apache.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Hello Mladen,
Great, now my cluster hot standby works as aspected. Thanks for your
quick help!
Current support of redirect is enough for me.
<http://dict.leo.org/se?lp=ende&p=/Mn4k.&search=enough>The domain
redirect use case to startup very save a next software generation
is working with the existing domain concept.
You have two tomcat cluster domains.
Two Apaches and three tomcat instances at every cluster domain.
worker.nodeA01.domain=A0
worker.nodeA02.domain=A0
worker.nodeA03.domain=A0
worker.nodeB01.domain=B0
worker.nodeB02.domain=B0
worker.nodeB03.domain=B0
worker.list=lb,status
worker.lb.balance_workers=nodeA01,nodeA02,nodeA03,nodeB01,nodeB02,nodeB03
worker.lb.type=lb
worker.status.type=status
Now you want start a new software generation under high load
Start the new Instance A1x, B1x
change the workers.properties at apache A and B
gracefull restart the apaches.
worker.nodeA01.domain=A0
worker.nodeA01.disabled=True
worker.nodeA02.domain=A0
worker.nodeA02.disabled=True
worker.nodeA03.domain=A0
worker.nodeA03.disabled=True
worker.nodeB01.domain=B0
worker.nodeB01.disabled=True
worker.nodeB02.domain=B0
worker.nodeB02.disabled=True
worker.nodeB03.domain=B0
worker.nodeB03.disabled=True
worker.nodeA11.domain=A1
worker.nodeA12.domain=A1
worker.nodeA13.domain=A1
worker.nodeB11.domain=B1
worker.nodeB12.domain=B1
worker.nodeB13.domain=B1
worker.list=lb,status
worker.lb.balance_workers=nodeA11,nodeA12,nodeA13,nodeB11,nodeB12,nodeB13,nodeA01,nodeA02,nodeA03,nodeB01,nodeB02,nodeB03
worker.lb.type=lb
worker.status.type=status
Old Session A0x, B0x working very well for old existing session and
replicated backup.
All new sessions goes to A1x,B1x nodes
After a some times, the admin can drop the old nodes (A0x, B0x) with
zero sessions active and than remove the
A0x and B0x workers.
How can I force a autoreloading with update the workers.properties,
without gracefull restart the apache?
Thanks very much,
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>> You will still need the redirect for hot-standby to work.
>> It's just like for workers, except that instead worker
>> name the domain is used, so you can have multiple
>> failover boxes.
>>
>
> Sorry, It won't failover to domain, so:
>
>
> worker.node1.domain=A
> worker.node1.redirect=node3
>
> worker.node2.domain=A
> worker.node2.redirect=node3
>
> worker.node3.domain=A
> worker.node3.disabled=True
>
> I'll see if and how a failover redirection
> for hot standby can be made to a group of workers.
> Not sure if this will have any real world usage, but
> it can be made.
> Convince me why would someone need 5 boxes not doing
> anything just in case. I mean, a single one should be
> enough ;).
>
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
> You will still need the redirect for hot-standby to work.
> It's just like for workers, except that instead worker
> name the domain is used, so you can have multiple
> failover boxes.
>
Sorry, It won't failover to domain, so:
worker.node1.domain=A
worker.node1.redirect=node3
worker.node2.domain=A
worker.node2.redirect=node3
worker.node3.domain=A
worker.node3.disabled=True
I'll see if and how a failover redirection
for hot standby can be made to a group of workers.
Not sure if this will have any real world usage, but
it can be made.
Convince me why would someone need 5 boxes not doing
anything just in case. I mean, a single one should be
enough ;).
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> Morning Mladen,
>
> I have build with newest patch and the redirect working well. Thanks :-)
Great.
> But the same szenario with domains don't work
>
You will still need the redirect for hot-standby to work.
It's just like for workers, except that instead worker
name the domain is used, so you can have multiple
failover boxes.
worker.node1.domain=A
worker.node1.redirect=B
worker.node2.domain=A
worker.node2.redirect=B
worker.node3.domain=B
Tell me if it's work.
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Morning Mladen,
I have build with newest patch and the redirect working well. Thanks :-)
But the same szenario with domains don't work
workers.properties:
================
worker.list=lb,status
worker.node1.port=9012
worker.node1.host=localhost
worker.node1.type=ajp13
worker.node1.disabled=true
worker.node1.domain=A
#worker.node1.redirect=node2
worker.node2.port=9022
worker.node2.host=localhost
worker.node2.type=ajp13
worker.node2.disabled=false
worker.node2.domain=A
#worker.node2.redirect=node1
worker.node3.port=9032
worker.node3.host=localhost
worker.node3.type=ajp13
worker.node3.disabled=false
worker.node3.domain=A
worker.lb.balance_workers=node1,node2,node3
worker.lb.type=lb
worker.status.type=status
szenarios:
node1 is disabled
node2 is active
node3 is active
start only node1
start firefox
Request failed with Internal Error
szenario 2
node1 is disabled
node2 is active
start node1, node2
request successfull
stop node2
request failed
Start a new Browser (mozilla) request failed again with Internat Error
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Peter Rossbach wrote:
>
>> Well,
>>
>> It works only for old requests, but new request get an Internal
>> Server Error!
>>
>
> Yes, seems that my test case was broken.
> It should work now. Can you check?
>
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> Well,
>
> It works only for old requests, but new request get an Internal Server
> Error!
>
Yes, seems that my test case was broken.
It should work now. Can you check?
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Well,
but at my test following is not the case:
>>Other thing is if Node2 breaks, then Node1 will
>>take old and new requests.
It works only for old requests, but new request get an Internal Server
Error!
Test with Apache 2.053, Windows XP, mod_jk CVS Head, Tomcat 5.5.8, JDK 1.5.0
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Peter Rossbach wrote:
>
>> Hello Mladen,
>>
>> hmm, with your example I got a Internal Server Error after I disable
>> or drop active node2 and start a new session request! :-(
>> All request with active node2 session work properly when node2
>> shutdown! What I want is that after a failure,
>> the node1 got all requests.
>
>
> Sorry, but this works well and as expected.
>
> 1. Node2:in_error -> redirect to node1
> 2. Node2:disabled -> exiting sessions to node2
> if Node1 disabled too -> 500
> 3. Enable Node1 -> new sessions to Node1
>
> So you will need to enable node1 then disable node2
> if you are doing maintenance.
>
>
> Other thing is if Node2 breaks, then Node1 will
> take old and new requests.
>
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> Hello Mladen,
>
> hmm, with your example I got a Internal Server Error after I disable or
> drop active node2 and start a new session request! :-(
> All request with active node2 session work properly when node2 shutdown!
> What I want is that after a failure,
> the node1 got all requests.
Sorry, but this works well and as expected.
1. Node2:in_error -> redirect to node1
2. Node2:disabled -> exiting sessions to node2
if Node1 disabled too -> 500
3. Enable Node1 -> new sessions to Node1
So you will need to enable node1 then disable node2
if you are doing maintenance.
Other thing is if Node2 breaks, then Node1 will
take old and new requests.
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Hello Mladen,
hmm, with your example I got a Internal Server Error after I disable or
drop active node2 and start a new session request! :-(
All request with active node2 session work properly when node2 shutdown!
What I want is that after a failure,
the node1 got all requests. This szenario work very well with old
local_worker mode.
Here my test confguration:
worker.list=lb,status
worker.node1.port=9012
worker.node1.host=localhost
worker.node1.type=ajp13
worker.node1.disabled=true
worker.node2.port=9022
worker.node2.host=localhost
worker.node2.type=ajp13
worker.node2.disabled=false
worker.node2.redirect=node1
worker.lb.balance_workers=node1,node2
worker.lb.type=lb
worker.status.type=status
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Peter Rossbach wrote:
>
>> Hello Mladen,
>>
>> after a very long thinking I have missing a hot Standby feature, when
>> we remove local_work flag.
>>
>> How I can configure this without local_work flag?
>> I thing we can rename the flag to preferred_worker.
>>
>
> OK.
> Worker B used as hot standby:
>
> worker.A.redirect=B
> worker.B.disabled=True
>
> worker.LB.sticky_session=True
> worker.LB.balance_workers=A,B
>
>
> If you wish to have a hot-standby
> tomcat cluster group, then use domains.
> For single workers use worker names.
>
> So worker B is initially disabled.
> Worker A has redirect of 'failover' to B.
> Worker B will not receive any requests unless
> worker A gets in error state or disabled.
> If worker A gets disabled existing sessions will
> be still served, new one will go to B.
>
> Later you can use jkstatus, and switch their roles.
>
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> Hello Mladen,
>
> after a very long thinking I have missing a hot Standby feature, when we
> remove local_work flag.
>
> How I can configure this without local_work flag?
> I thing we can rename the flag to preferred_worker.
>
OK.
Worker B used as hot standby:
worker.A.redirect=B
worker.B.disabled=True
worker.LB.sticky_session=True
worker.LB.balance_workers=A,B
If you wish to have a hot-standby
tomcat cluster group, then use domains.
For single workers use worker names.
So worker B is initially disabled.
Worker A has redirect of 'failover' to B.
Worker B will not receive any requests unless
worker A gets in error state or disabled.
If worker A gets disabled existing sessions will
be still served, new one will go to B.
Later you can use jkstatus, and switch their roles.
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Hello Mladen,
after a very long thinking I have missing a hot Standby feature, when we
remove local_work flag.
Example
two tomcat instance with local_worker=true and domain=A
one tomcat instance with local_worker=false and domain=B
New session only generate to domain A tomcat instance
After complete disable all domain A instance, the new sessions fork to
tomcat instances at domain B ( hot standby)
After complete domain A instances failure all requests forward to domain
B instances.
How I can configure this without local_work flag?
I thing we can rename the flag to preferred_worker.
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to deprecate the local_worker and local_worker_only
> directives.
>
> The reason is that we have now shared memory, and thus more powerful
> ways to accomplish it's use.
>
> Now, we two new directives 'redirect' and 'domain' that are more
> powerful then exiting ones.
>
> Here is how it works:
>
> 1. If there is a session the request is routed to the worker.
> 2. If there is no session and the worker is disabled, meaning not
> accepting new connections then the request is redirected to
> the 'redirect' router if present or 'domain' if not.
> 3. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> the 'sticky_session_force' is not set then the 'redirect'
> and 'domain' are checked.
> 4. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> the 'sticky_session_force' is set the 500 is returned.
>
> Here is the simple state table:
> ('x' means don't care, '-' means not set)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | worker | session | route | domain | force | err | dis | result |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | x | x | x | 0 | x | w1 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | x | x | 1 | 1 | x | 500 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | w2 | x | 0 | 1 | x | w2 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | - | grp | 0 | 1 | x | grp |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 0 | any |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | grp | x | 0 | 0 | grp |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 1 | !w1 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So, basically the local_worker_only will become 'sticky_session_force',
> that is more descriptive meaning of the actual usage.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by TECHNICAL DIRECTOR <qu...@satalogue.net>.
PLEASE STOP SENDING US YOUR E-MAILS....Satalogue
--- Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, I was unconfortable to explain these.
>
> Simpler the better
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:58:11 +0100, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to deprecate the local_worker and local_worker_only
> > directives.
> >
> > The reason is that we have now shared memory, and thus more powerful
> > ways to accomplish it's use.
> >
> > Now, we two new directives 'redirect' and 'domain' that are more
> > powerful then exiting ones.
> >
> > Here is how it works:
> >
> > 1. If there is a session the request is routed to the worker.
> > 2. If there is no session and the worker is disabled, meaning not
> > accepting new connections then the request is redirected to
> > the 'redirect' router if present or 'domain' if not.
> > 3. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> > the 'sticky_session_force' is not set then the 'redirect'
> > and 'domain' are checked.
> > 4. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> > the 'sticky_session_force' is set the 500 is returned.
> >
> > Here is the simple state table:
> > ('x' means don't care, '-' means not set)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | worker | session | route | domain | force | err | dis | result |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | w1 | x | x | x | 0 | x | w1 |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | w1 | x | x | 1 | 1 | x | 500 |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | w1 | w2 | x | 0 | 1 | x | w2 |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | w1 | - | grp | 0 | 1 | x | grp |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 0 | any |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | - | - | grp | x | 0 | 0 | grp |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 1 | !w1 |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So, basically the local_worker_only will become
> 'sticky_session_force',
> > that is more descriptive meaning of the actual usage.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mladen.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
=====
FROM SATALOGUE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT.......WE HAVE READ YOUR E-MAIL...
Please call our Duty Engineer on 01332 811564 - for a proper 'one to one' answer as further information and / or clarification is required from you in order to answer your question properly .
He is available from 10am until 5pm Monday to Friday inclusive.
TO RETURN TO SATALOGUE WEBSITE: Click on to link below.....
http://www.satalogue.com/about.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: JK Removing local_worker and local_worker_only directives
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
+1, I was unconfortable to explain these.
Simpler the better
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:58:11 +0100, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to deprecate the local_worker and local_worker_only
> directives.
>
> The reason is that we have now shared memory, and thus more powerful
> ways to accomplish it's use.
>
> Now, we two new directives 'redirect' and 'domain' that are more
> powerful then exiting ones.
>
> Here is how it works:
>
> 1. If there is a session the request is routed to the worker.
> 2. If there is no session and the worker is disabled, meaning not
> accepting new connections then the request is redirected to
> the 'redirect' router if present or 'domain' if not.
> 3. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> the 'sticky_session_force' is not set then the 'redirect'
> and 'domain' are checked.
> 4. If there is a session and the worker is in error state and
> the 'sticky_session_force' is set the 500 is returned.
>
> Here is the simple state table:
> ('x' means don't care, '-' means not set)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | worker | session | route | domain | force | err | dis | result |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | x | x | x | 0 | x | w1 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | x | x | 1 | 1 | x | 500 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | w2 | x | 0 | 1 | x | w2 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | w1 | - | grp | 0 | 1 | x | grp |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 0 | any |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | grp | x | 0 | 0 | grp |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | w1 | - | - | - | x | 0 | 1 | !w1 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, basically the local_worker_only will become 'sticky_session_force',
> that is more descriptive meaning of the actual usage.
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org