You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Ma...@iroise.net on 2002/05/15 15:15:43 UTC
local worker patch for JK1
Hi,
there is something that bothers me in the patch Bernd sent, that is
the local_worker property of workers, I think the concept of local
worker is linked with that of load balancing worker, and not to that
of worker. Nothing forbids to have an ajp13 worker in several load
balancing workers, if the local worker property is linked to the ajp13
worker, the worker will be considered local for every load balancing
worker it appears in which is something I think should be avoided.
Mathias.
--
-- Credit Mutuel de Bretagne -- DST / Reseaux et Systemes Distribues
-- 32 rue Mirabeau -- Le Relecq-Kerhuon -- 29808 Brest Cedex 9, FRANCE
-- Tel +33298004653 - Fax +33298284005 - Mail: Mathias.Herberts@cmb.fr
-- Key Fingerprint: 8778 D2FD 3B4A 6B33 10AB F503 63D0 ADAE 9112 03E4
--
Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le "message") sont
confidentiels et etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires.
Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisee est interdite. Tout
message etant susceptible d'alteration, l'emetteur decline toute
responsabilite au titre de ce message s'il a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie.
-----------------------------------
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and
intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or
dissemination is prohibited. As e-mails are susceptible to alteration,
the issuer shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed
or falsified.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: local worker patch for JK1
Posted by Bernd Koecke <bk...@schlund.de>.
Mathias.Herberts@iroise.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is something that bothers me in the patch Bernd sent, that is
> the local_worker property of workers, I think the concept of local
> worker is linked with that of load balancing worker, and not to that
> of worker. Nothing forbids to have an ajp13 worker in several load
> balancing workers, if the local worker property is linked to the ajp13
> worker, the worker will be considered local for every load balancing
> worker it appears in which is something I think should be avoided.
>
> Mathias.
>
Sorry, but I asked for, how to handle this flag yesterday and I got no response.
Costin said, that he'll wait for my patch, and I don't want to let him wait for
days.
If we add a list to the lb_worker, how should this be handled? Lets say it is
called 'local_workers'. Should the local workers be in the list of balanced
workers too? If yes, I think this makes the config look a little bit unclean. If
not, we have to change the validate function more than I want to, because it
depends on having balanced workers. And with a second list it is possible to
have only local workers.
By the way, with the same motivation we should ask about the lb_value. It is not
possible to have one worker with different values in different lb_workers. But
it may be that one worker is the most powerful in one group (lb_worker) and less
powerful in another. Ok normaly the lb_values should be choosen in order to the
power of all workers and not because of one group. :)
I build the patch for the described simple situation. When I understand jk2
right, this would be the right choice for a more complex environment.
Which way should be implemented? We should find one position and implement it
then. May be I was a little bit to fast this time :).
Bernd
--
Dipl.-Inform. Bernd Koecke
UNIX-Entwicklung
Schlund+Partner AG
Fon: +49-721-91374-0
E-Mail: bk@schlund.de
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: local worker patch for JK1
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 15 May 2002 Mathias.Herberts@iroise.net wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there is something that bothers me in the patch Bernd sent, that is
> the local_worker property of workers, I think the concept of local
> worker is linked with that of load balancing worker, and not to that
> of worker. Nothing forbids to have an ajp13 worker in several load
> balancing workers, if the local worker property is linked to the ajp13
> worker, the worker will be considered local for every load balancing
> worker it appears in which is something I think should be avoided.
I agree, but this is too complicated. If anyone really need this
feature ( or different lb factors on different load balancers ) we can
add more settings.
Most people use a single lb, and things are already complex if you
have multiple lbs. Let's leave this for jk2.x.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>