You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Dave Oxley <da...@workplace-systems.plc.uk> on 2003/11/13 17:40:35 UTC
Tomcat 5.0.14 and JK loadbalancing
I have 4 load balanced JK (1.2.5) workers. When I select to stop Tomcat
(5.0.14), which takes a while to shut down (because of some daemon
threads in our app) a 400 bad request is returned to the browser even
though there are other JK workers that could be used.
A couple of causes spring to mind, but I don't know which one is true.
Does it take a while for mod_jk to learn about the stopped status of the
JK worker?
Is it a bug with JK or Tomcat 5?
JK load balancing was not designed for fault tolerance?
I would appreciate some advice/explanation as this is about to become
our standard setup.
Cheers.
Dave.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 5.0.14 and JK loadbalancing
Posted by Dave Oxley <da...@daveoxley.co.uk>.
Didn't get a reply on this. Does anyone have an idea?
Dave Oxley wrote:
> I have 4 load balanced JK (1.2.5) workers. When I select to stop
> Tomcat (5.0.14), which takes a while to shut down (because of some
> daemon threads in our app) a 400 bad request is returned to the
> browser even though there are other JK workers that could be used.
>
> A couple of causes spring to mind, but I don't know which one is true.
> Does it take a while for mod_jk to learn about the stopped status of
> the JK worker?
> Is it a bug with JK or Tomcat 5?
> JK load balancing was not designed for fault tolerance?
>
> I would appreciate some advice/explanation as this is about to become
> our standard setup.
>
> Cheers.
> Dave.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
* Dave Oxley *
* +44 (0)7966 249 344
* * * * Dave@JungleMoss.com * * <ma...@JungleMoss.com>
* * * * http://www.daveoxley.co.uk * * <http://www.daveoxley.co.uk> *
* "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!" * * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org