You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jetspeed-user@portals.apache.org by Joachim Müller <jo...@wemove.com> on 2003/09/05 20:10:52 UTC
loadbalancing question (sticky session)
Hi List.
I am having a problem with loadbalancing. this is my setup:
1x Apache 2.0.47 with mod_jk
2x Tomcat 4.1.x on seperate machines
2x Jetspeed1.4b4
Everything is set up alright, so I can do load balancing.
The session will be extended by mod_jk to keep track
which session goes to which app server (SESSION_ID.worker1 or
SESSION_ID.worker2).
The problem seems to be that the jetspeed tags truncate
the session id from the worker info. Even if the request
states SESSION_ID.worker1 the links produced by Jetspeed
contain only the SESSION_ID without the '.worker1'
This must not happen, because if I switch from server1 to
server2 all session data is lost of course.
Does anybody can help me out?
Maybe it's a Tomcat issue defining the Session ID pattern?
Thanks in advance.
Joachim
AW: loadbalancing question (sticky session)
Posted by Joachim Müller <jo...@wemove.com>.
OK, ok, my fault. I checked the server.xml files
again and ... in the worker2 config file the
jvmRoute attribute was missing in the Engine Tag.
<Engine jvmRoute="worker2" name="Standalone" defaultHost="localhost" debug="0">
sorry for any inconvenience.
Regards, Joachim
p.s. loadbalancing really works :-)
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Joachim Müller [mailto:joachim@wemove.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. September 2003 21:28
> An: Jetspeed Users List
> Betreff: AW: loadbalancing question (sticky session)
>
>
>
> I have to correct myself. It's a bit more
> complicated.
>
> It seems to be that the setup looses the session
> information from time to time.
>
> The setup works OK, if there is only one worker.
> the session will never be lost.
>
> If two workers are present AND the users session
> is NOT bound to worker1, it will loose the the
> session and create a new.
>
> Strange also that worker2 will never be extended
> to the session ID. I only see "sessionID.worker1"
> and "sessionID".
>
> here is my workers.properties:
>
> worker.list=worker1,worker2,loadbalancer
>
> worker.worker1.port=8009
> worker.worker1.host=localhost
> worker.worker1.type=ajp13
> worker.worker1.lbfactor=50
>
> worker.worker2.port=8009
> worker.worker2.host=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
> worker.worker2.type=ajp13
> worker.worker2.lbfactor=50
>
> worker.loadbalancer.type=lb
> worker.loadbalancer.balanced_workers=worker2,worker1
> worker.loadbalancer.sticky_session=1
>
>
> hope anyone can help.
>
> thanks in advance.
>
> oh, Everything runs on Win2K Dual Processor machines.
> Maybe that's important.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Joachim Müller [mailto:joachim@wemove.com]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. September 2003 20:11
> > An: jetspeed-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Betreff: loadbalancing question (sticky session)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi List.
> >
> > I am having a problem with loadbalancing. this is my setup:
> >
> > 1x Apache 2.0.47 with mod_jk
> > 2x Tomcat 4.1.x on seperate machines
> > 2x Jetspeed1.4b4
> >
> > Everything is set up alright, so I can do load balancing.
> > The session will be extended by mod_jk to keep track
> > which session goes to which app server (SESSION_ID.worker1 or
> > SESSION_ID.worker2).
> >
> > The problem seems to be that the jetspeed tags truncate
> > the session id from the worker info. Even if the request
> > states SESSION_ID.worker1 the links produced by Jetspeed
> > contain only the SESSION_ID without the '.worker1'
> >
> > This must not happen, because if I switch from server1 to
> > server2 all session data is lost of course.
> >
> > Does anybody can help me out?
> >
> > Maybe it's a Tomcat issue defining the Session ID pattern?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Joachim
> >
AW: loadbalancing question (sticky session)
Posted by Joachim Müller <jo...@wemove.com>.
I have to correct myself. It's a bit more
complicated.
It seems to be that the setup looses the session
information from time to time.
The setup works OK, if there is only one worker.
the session will never be lost.
If two workers are present AND the users session
is NOT bound to worker1, it will loose the the
session and create a new.
Strange also that worker2 will never be extended
to the session ID. I only see "sessionID.worker1"
and "sessionID".
here is my workers.properties:
worker.list=worker1,worker2,loadbalancer
worker.worker1.port=8009
worker.worker1.host=localhost
worker.worker1.type=ajp13
worker.worker1.lbfactor=50
worker.worker2.port=8009
worker.worker2.host=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
worker.worker2.type=ajp13
worker.worker2.lbfactor=50
worker.loadbalancer.type=lb
worker.loadbalancer.balanced_workers=worker2,worker1
worker.loadbalancer.sticky_session=1
hope anyone can help.
thanks in advance.
oh, Everything runs on Win2K Dual Processor machines.
Maybe that's important.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Joachim Müller [mailto:joachim@wemove.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. September 2003 20:11
> An: jetspeed-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Betreff: loadbalancing question (sticky session)
>
>
>
> Hi List.
>
> I am having a problem with loadbalancing. this is my setup:
>
> 1x Apache 2.0.47 with mod_jk
> 2x Tomcat 4.1.x on seperate machines
> 2x Jetspeed1.4b4
>
> Everything is set up alright, so I can do load balancing.
> The session will be extended by mod_jk to keep track
> which session goes to which app server (SESSION_ID.worker1 or
> SESSION_ID.worker2).
>
> The problem seems to be that the jetspeed tags truncate
> the session id from the worker info. Even if the request
> states SESSION_ID.worker1 the links produced by Jetspeed
> contain only the SESSION_ID without the '.worker1'
>
> This must not happen, because if I switch from server1 to
> server2 all session data is lost of course.
>
> Does anybody can help me out?
>
> Maybe it's a Tomcat issue defining the Session ID pattern?
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Joachim
>