You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com> on 2011/04/25 10:40:59 UTC

pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Hi,

I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third party
webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
300M).
I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server 1,
and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.

My objectives are :
* server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
* any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it might
trigger a memory overload

So I set up my httpd.conf as is :

JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat


and my worker.properties as is :

worker.list = failover

# ------------------------
# template
# ------------------------
worker.template.type=ajp13
worker.template.lbfactor=1
worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
worker.template.fail_on_status=500

# ------------------------
# tomcat1
# ------------------------
worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
worker.tomcat1.port=9001
worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
 worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover

# ------------------------
# tomcat2
# ------------------------
worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
worker.tomcat2.port=9002
worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover


# ------------------------
# failover
# ------------------------
worker.failover.type=lb
worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2

The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.

Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I could'nt
make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from the
worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.

I must say i am quite stuck here. Would anyone get an idea ?

regards
gui

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Hi Felix,


That's strange, it doesn't try to connect to the c1t2 worker, here is the
log file.

[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (626): connect to 127.0.0.1:9001 failed
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_connect_to_endpoint::jk_ajp_common.c (959): Failed opening socket to (
127.0.0.1:9001) (errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1578): (c1t1) connecting to backend
failed. Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the wrong port
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2543): (c1t1) sending request to tomcat failed
(recoverable), because of error during request sending (attempt=1)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (626): connect to 127.0.0.1:9001 failed
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_connect_to_endpoint::jk_ajp_common.c (959): Failed opening socket to (
127.0.0.1:9001) (errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1578): (c1t1) connecting to backend
failed. Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the wrong port
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2543): (c1t1) sending request to tomcat failed
(recoverable), because of error during request sending (attempt=2)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2562): (c1t1) connecting to tomcat failed.
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1388): service failed, worker c1t1 is in error
state
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1440): Forcing recovery once for 1 workers
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (626): connect to 127.0.0.1:9001 failed
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_connect_to_endpoint::jk_ajp_common.c (959): Failed opening socket to (
127.0.0.1:9001) (errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1578): (c1t1) connecting to backend
failed. Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the wrong port
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2543): (c1t1) sending request to tomcat failed
(recoverable), because of error during request sending (attempt=1)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (626): connect to 127.0.0.1:9001 failed
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_connect_to_endpoint::jk_ajp_common.c (959): Failed opening socket to (
127.0.0.1:9001) (errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1578): (c1t1) connecting to backend
failed. Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the wrong port
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2543): (c1t1) sending request to tomcat failed
(recoverable), because of error during request sending (attempt=2)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (2562): (c1t1) connecting to tomcat failed.
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1388): service failed, worker c1t1 is in error
state
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1457): All tomcat instances failed, no more workers
left (attempt=0, retry=1)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1457): All tomcat instances failed, no more workers
left (attempt=1, retry=1)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1468): All tomcat instances are busy or in error
state
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [error]
service::jk_lb_worker.c (1473): All tomcat instances failed, no more workers
left
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:34 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info] jk_handler::mod_jk.c
(2627): Service error=0 for worker=cluster1


I implement a workaround by dealing with lbfactor :
worker.c1t1.lbfactor=100
worker.c1t1.redirect=cluster1

worker.c1t2.lbfactor=1
worker.c1t2.redirect=cluster1
#worker.c1t2.activation=disabled

It is very unlikely that i get 100 request on one server.
This does looks good but a pretty complex configuration if we move up to
three server. And complexity will increase with the number of server.
Seems that load balancing is easier than failover.

gui



On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for your answer Felix,
>>>
>> Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
>> define two clusters:
>>
>>  worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
>>
>>  ...
>
>   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
>>  worker.c2t2.host=localhost
>>  worker.c2t2.port=9002
>>  worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
>>
> Aargh, this should be
>  worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
>
> Bye
>  Felix
>
>
>> You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and
>> "tomcat2".
>>
>> To mount your webapps, you can use
>>
>>  JkMount /ABC* cluster1
>>  JkMount /DEF* cluster2
>>
>> Regards
>>  Felix
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
>>>>> party
>>>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>>>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
>>>>> 300M).
>>>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server
>>>>> 1,
>>>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> My objectives are :
>>>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
>>>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it
>>>>> might
>>>>> trigger a memory overload
>>>>>
>>>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>>>>>
>>>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>>>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and my worker.properties as is :
>>>>>
>>>>> worker.list = failover
>>>>>
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> # template
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>>>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>>>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>>>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>>>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>>>>>
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> # tomcat1
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>>>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>>>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>>>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>>>>>
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> # tomcat2
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>>>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>>>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>>>>
>>>>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
>>> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>>
>>>
>>>   worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> # failover
>>>>> # ------------------------
>>>>> worker.failover.type=lb
>>>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>>>>>
>>>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>>>>>
>>>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I
>>>>> could'nt
>>>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
>>>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from the
>>>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified by
>>>> a jk
>>>> mount. Servlets will
>>>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to a
>>>> servlet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
>>> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
>>> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are instanciate
>>> and
>>> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
>>> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate only
>>> on
>>> one server.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting in the
>>>> "failover" tomcat. But it
>>>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared
>>> classes,
>>> jar, etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>  That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover worker
>>>> instead of a direct redirect like
>>>>
>>>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
>>>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it in
>>> the
>>> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to contact
>>> it
>>> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
>>> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> gui
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Felix,

On 5/2/2011 12:20 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> That would be nice, if it would work, but sadly it doesn't. 
> 
> redirect is only alowed for a sub-worker, which is referenced indirectly
> by a load balancer group.
> See http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/workers.html

Aw, crap. I didn't notice the "SUB" worker type restriction while
reading the docs. Sorry for the noise.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3AYncACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PD6QgCgmIPofWHEvMVlrJ8+2AYoKZRz
g5YAn2fUPL4yOCRVwEI481CVmwVAle7b
=+dIS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am Montag, den 02.05.2011, 10:06 -0400 schrieb Christopher Schultz:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Felix,
> 
> On 4/30/2011 5:09 AM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > The original req, as I understood it:
> > 
> > tomcat1
> >   \-- /abc*  (active)
> >   |-- /def*  (passive)
> > 
> > tomcat2
> >   \-- /abc*  (passive)
> >   |-- /def*  (active)
> > 
> > If one of those tomcat servers shuts down, the other one should be used
> > as failover.
> 
> Yup, that's how I understood things. This should be dead simple, since
> the OP has every webapp configured to essentially configure-on-first-access.
> 
> 1. Deploy all webapps on both servers
> 2. Configure mod_jk to send all requests for apps on tomcat1 to the
> "tomcat1" worker. Configure "tomcat1" worker to have redirect=tomcat2
> (or whatever setting makes that work, if you need jvmroute, etc.).
> 3. Configure mod_jk to send all requests for apps on tomcat2 to the
> "tomcat2" worker -- mirror config to #2 above.
That would be nice, if it would work, but sadly it doesn't. 

redirect is only alowed for a sub-worker, which is referenced indirectly
by a load balancer group.
See http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/workers.html

And just in case, that the documentation would be wrong, I tested it
with your simple setup. It doesn't redirect.

Regards
 Felix
> 
> > Thus you will have to define a cluster - or rather two clusters -,
> > if you are using mod_jk, as failover and load-balancing are only
> > possible within a cluster.
> 
> I think you only need a "cluster" (i.e. an "lb" worker with multiple
> lb_workers configured) if you want to failover to more than one target
> machine. If the OP just wants to daisy-chain servers like this:
> 
> T1 -> T2 -> T3 -> T4 -> T1
> 
> ... then only "redirect" should be necessary.
> 
> > Two clusters are needed for each webapp group abc* and def*, since the
> > workers can not
> > be in active and passive state at the same time.
> 
> The workers are always active. When mod_jk detects failure of, say,
> tomcat1 worker, tomcat2 worker is used until tomcat1 recovers. At that
> point, the Tomcat2 server has all webapps loaded and will need to be
> bounced to reduce the memory usage (or, at least, all hot-standby
> webapps will need to be re-deployed).
> 
> > Do you think it could be made easier with mod_jk but use two clusters?
> 
> I assert that no "clustering" is necessary at all.
> 
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk2+ulsACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCLBQCgp2CA7A6AipZSVI1ftltylVFP
> +ucAnAwpzvZFLNFQDbfwSGFkWK0kJ6uz
> =RI96
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Felix,

On 4/30/2011 5:09 AM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> The original req, as I understood it:
> 
> tomcat1
>   \-- /abc*  (active)
>   |-- /def*  (passive)
> 
> tomcat2
>   \-- /abc*  (passive)
>   |-- /def*  (active)
> 
> If one of those tomcat servers shuts down, the other one should be used
> as failover.

Yup, that's how I understood things. This should be dead simple, since
the OP has every webapp configured to essentially configure-on-first-access.

1. Deploy all webapps on both servers
2. Configure mod_jk to send all requests for apps on tomcat1 to the
"tomcat1" worker. Configure "tomcat1" worker to have redirect=tomcat2
(or whatever setting makes that work, if you need jvmroute, etc.).
3. Configure mod_jk to send all requests for apps on tomcat2 to the
"tomcat2" worker -- mirror config to #2 above.

> Thus you will have to define a cluster - or rather two clusters -,
> if you are using mod_jk, as failover and load-balancing are only
> possible within a cluster.

I think you only need a "cluster" (i.e. an "lb" worker with multiple
lb_workers configured) if you want to failover to more than one target
machine. If the OP just wants to daisy-chain servers like this:

T1 -> T2 -> T3 -> T4 -> T1

... then only "redirect" should be necessary.

> Two clusters are needed for each webapp group abc* and def*, since the
> workers can not
> be in active and passive state at the same time.

The workers are always active. When mod_jk detects failure of, say,
tomcat1 worker, tomcat2 worker is used until tomcat1 recovers. At that
point, the Tomcat2 server has all webapps loaded and will need to be
bounced to reduce the memory usage (or, at least, all hot-standby
webapps will need to be re-deployed).

> Do you think it could be made easier with mod_jk but use two clusters?

I assert that no "clustering" is necessary at all.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2+ulsACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCLBQCgp2CA7A6AipZSVI1ftltylVFP
+ucAnAwpzvZFLNFQDbfwSGFkWK0kJ6uz
=RI96
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
 On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:39:09 -0400, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Felix,
>
> On 4/28/2011 12:44 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>> "Christopher Schultz" <ch...@christopherschultz.net> schrieb:
>>
>> Felix and Guillaume,
>>
>>> I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple 
>>> as
>>> using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering 
>>> or
>>> anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
>>> there's no cluster.
>>
>> If you are willing to run all webapps on both servers, you are 
>> right.
>> But the original requirement was to have one set of webapps on one
>> server and one set on the other, with failover in case of downtime
>> of either one.
>
> Failover is not possible unless the target webapp is running on the 
> hot
> spare, so... ??!
 Right, the webapps are running on both servers at the same time, but 
 only
 one set of apps will be served the requests on each tomcat.

 The original req, as I understood it:

 tomcat1
   \-- /abc*  (active)
   |-- /def*  (passive)

 tomcat2
   \-- /abc*  (passive)
   |-- /def*  (active)

 If one of those tomcat servers shuts down, the other one should be used 
 as failover.

 The passive webapps should not be used in normal operations, because of 
 memory constraints.

 It was allowed to use them in case of emergency, to have some more time 
 to respond.

 Thus you will have to define a cluster - or rather two clusters -, if 
 you are using
 mod_jk, as failover and load-balancing are only possible within a 
 cluster.

 Two clusters are needed for each webapp group abc* and def*, since the 
 workers can not
 be in active and passive state at the same time.

 Do you think it could be made easier with mod_jk but use two clusters?

 It might be easier to set this up using mod_proxy_ajp, but I haven't 
 used it yet. But
 looking at the docs 
 http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html, it might look
 like this:

  # WARNING: I haven't tested this!
  ProxyPass / balancer://abc/
  <Proxy balancer://abc>
    BalancerMember ajp://localhost:9001 loadfactor=1
    # The below is the hot standby
    BalancerMember ajp://localhost:9002 status=+H
  </Proxy>
  ProxyPass / balancer://def/
  <Proxy balancer://def>
    BalancerMember ajp://localhost:9002 loadfactor=1
    # The below is the hot standby
    BalancerMember ajp://localhost:9001 status=+H
  </Proxy>

 Bye
  Felix

>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk27Pg0ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBVVACgsmEx4G7z1KIp2a3LOJqO9goX
> RiMAniDmizGLLHpw2vJ1ghcwBVCe4AJ9
> =YnDs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Felix,

On 4/28/2011 12:44 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> "Christopher Schultz" <ch...@christopherschultz.net> schrieb:
> 
> Felix and Guillaume,
> 
>> I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
>> using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
>> anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
>> there's no cluster.
>
> If you are willing to run all webapps on both servers, you are right.
> But the original requirement was to have one set of webapps on one 
> server and one set on the other, with failover in case of downtime
> of either one.

Failover is not possible unless the target webapp is running on the hot
spare, so... ??!

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk27Pg0ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBVVACgsmEx4G7z1KIp2a3LOJqO9goX
RiMAniDmizGLLHpw2vJ1ghcwBVCe4AJ9
=YnDs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Hi Felix,

To keep you posted, your solution is working smoothly, the error was coming
from redirect set to the cluster instead of the jvmRoute.

My point (and for now it is a pure theorical question as I don't have the
need) was If I want to add a third or fourth server (for load reason). I
will have the following :
* 1 failover on 2
* 2 failover on 3
* 3 failover on 1
vs using the lbfactor solution :
* instance 1 failover on cluster 1 which still have the 2nd and 3rd instance
with an lbfactor of 1 each
* instance 2 failover on cluster 2 ...
* ...
-> in this solution, if the failover is triggered the load balancing will be
used

So both solution have Pro & Cons, i think I will need to see real life to
choose between both.

Thanks for the help
gui



On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

>
>
> "Christopher Schultz" <ch...@christopherschultz.net> schrieb:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Felix and Guillaume,
> >
> >I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
> >using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
> >anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
> >there's no cluster.
> If you are willing to run all webapps on both servers, you are right.
> But the original requirement was to have one set of webapps on one server
> and one set on the other, with failover in case of downtime of either one.
>
> Felix
> >
> >- -chris
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >
> >iEYEARECAAYFAk25fNIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBNDgCgiVLMqKNj6WEX4GrHrpNVHekL
> >bn4An2SDMZPE37tkcLCxnknf2/9TUyAD
> >=+X7N
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.

"Christopher Schultz" <ch...@christopherschultz.net> schrieb:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Felix and Guillaume,
>
>I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
>using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
>anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
>there's no cluster.
If you are willing to run all webapps on both servers, you are right.
But the original requirement was to have one set of webapps on one server and one set on the other, with failover in case of downtime of either one.

Felix 
>
>- -chris
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
>iEYEARECAAYFAk25fNIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBNDgCgiVLMqKNj6WEX4GrHrpNVHekL
>bn4An2SDMZPE37tkcLCxnknf2/9TUyAD
>=+X7N
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Felix and Guillaume,

I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
there's no cluster.

- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk25fNIACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBNDgCgiVLMqKNj6WEX4GrHrpNVHekL
bn4An2SDMZPE37tkcLCxnknf2/9TUyAD
=+X7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
 On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:15:36 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
>> > Felix,
>> >
>> > Dis you check my workaround ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>> > felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix 
>> Schumacher:
>> > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>> > > > >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
>> > > > > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will 
>> have to
>> > > > > define two clusters:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
>> > > > >
>> > > >  ...
>> > > > >   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
>> > > > >   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
>> > > > >   worker.c2t2.port=9002
>> > > > >   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
>> > > >  Aargh, this should be
>> > > >    worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
>> > > Ok, last correction. redirect takes the name of the jvmRoute, 
>> not that
>> > > of the worker. So those two configuration entries should be
>> > >
>> > > worker.c2t2.redirect=tomcat1
>> > > worker.c1t1.redirect=tomcat2
>> > >
>> > >
>> > argh you're right, but with my work around you can avoid dealing 
>> with the
>> > route, it is a bit more scalable.
>> >
>> > I implement a workaround by dealing with lbfactor :
>> > worker.c1t1.lbfactor=100
>> > worker.c1t1.redirect=cluster1
>> >
>> > worker.c1t2.lbfactor=1
>> > worker.c1t2.redirect=cluster1
>> > #worker.c1t2.activation=disabled
>> >
>> > It is very unlikely that i get 100 request on one server.
>> > This does looks good but a pretty complex configuration if we move 
>> up to
>> > three server. And complexity will increase with the number of 
>> server.
>> > Seems that load balancing is easier than failover.
>> I don't think lbfactor is the right solution for your problem, but I
>> haven't checked it. I think your setup will pass 100 requests to 
>> worker
>> c1t1 and then 1 request to worker c1t2 (probably simplified it quite 
>> a
>> lot). That will trigger your servlets from your "failover" instance,
>> which you wanted to circumvent.
>>
>
> I am not convinced either by my workaround of your solution but for 
> now that
> is the best solution. Still looking for a better one.
> I will put an lbfactor of 100000 that will prevent any request on 
> c1t2.
> And if c1t1 faill, c1t2 will take all request.
> -> I have a defacto working failover. And scalable because i can have 
> a c1t3
> with lbfactor of 1.
 As said already, I don't think lbfactor can be used as a replacement to 
 activation,
 no matter what factors you choose.

 I suspect, that you are mounting the tomcatX workers directly instead 
 of the clusters.
 If your are doing that, you will have no loadbalancing nor failover.

 If you are mounting two clusters, as I haven showed in my examples, 
 there really is
 no difference in complexity between loadbalancing  with lbfactor and 
 failover.

 Wondering about your config
  Felix

>
>
>> As stated in my correction above, redirect takes the name of the
>> jvmRoute and I doubt, that your tomcat instance is called cluster1, 
>> so
>> that statement will be wrong.
>>
> I got it, and thanks for pointing that out, if I had rtfm correctly 
> earlier,
> I might have spare quite a lot of time.
>
>
>> You are right that loadbalancing is simpler than my example with two
>> clusters, but that is because your original requirement were more
>> complex then simple loadbalancing.
>>
>
>> If you have the memory resources for simple loadbalancing I would go 
>> for
>> it.
>>
>
> I can't afford it, as I spotted in my original mail : 1 webapp is 
> around
> 400M, at any time I have 6-8webapp (and increasing) started on each 
> server.
> I would go from 5-6gig to potentialy 10-12 : i am pretty sure some 
> people
> might disagree with that (me, for one), with this solution almost all 
> the
> memory is used (few spare), if something failed : I have enough time 
> to
> react.
>
> Regard
> gui
>
>
>> Regards
>>  Felix
>> >
>> > gui
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Regards
>> > >  Felix
>> > > >
>> > > >  Bye
>> > > >   Felix
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" 
>> and
>> > > > > "tomcat2".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > To mount your webapps, you can use
>> > > > >
>> > > > >   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
>> > > > >   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards
>> > > > >  Felix
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>> > > > >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier 
>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Hi,
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set 
>> (50+) of
>> > > > >>>> third
>> > > > >>>> party
>> > > > >>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>> > > > >>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when 
>> started
>> (more
>> > > > >>>> than
>> > > > >>>> 300M).
>> > > > >>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by 
>> tomcat
>> > > > >>>> server 1,
>> > > > >>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat 
>> server 2.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> My objectives are :
>> > > > >>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover 
>> of
>> > > > >>>> server1.
>> > > > >>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server 
>> otherwise
>> it
>> > > > >>>> might
>> > > > >>>> trigger a memory overload
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>> > > > >>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> and my worker.properties as is :
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> worker.list = failover
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> # template
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>> > > > >>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>> > > > >>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>> > > > >>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>> > > > >>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> # tomcat1
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>> > > > >>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> # tomcat2
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
>> > > > >> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> # failover
>> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
>> > > > >>>> worker.failover.type=lb
>> > > > >>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, 
>> but I
>> > > > >>>> could'nt
>> > > > >>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the 
>> worker.properties.
>> > > > >>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount 
>> directive
>> > > > >>>> from the
>> > > > >>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on 
>> any
>> server.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you
>> specified
>> > > > >>> by a jk
>> > > > >>> mount. Servlets will
>> > > > >>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a 
>> request
>> to
>> > > > >>> a
>> > > > >>> servlet.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
>> > > > >> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
>> > > > >> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects 
>> are
>> > > > >> instanciate and
>> > > > >> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
>> > > > >> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be
>> instanciate
>> > > > >> only on
>> > > > >> one server.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from 
>> starting
>> > > > >>> in the
>> > > > >>> "failover" tomcat. But it
>> > > > >>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all 
>> shared
>> > > > >> classes,
>> > > > >> jar, etc...
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special 
>> failover
>> > > > >>> worker
>> > > > >>> instead of a direct redirect like
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
>> > > > >>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to 
>> declare
>> it
>> > > > >> in the
>> > > > >> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to 
>> try to
>> > > > >> contact it
>> > > > >> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a 
>> another
>> worker
>> > > > >> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not 
>> for 3.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> thanks
>> > > > >> gui
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
> > Felix,
> >
> > Dis you check my workaround ?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> > felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > > > >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> > > > > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
> > > > > define two clusters:
> > > > >
> > > > >   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
> > > > >
> > > >  ...
> > > > >   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
> > > > >   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
> > > > >   worker.c2t2.port=9002
> > > > >   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
> > > >  Aargh, this should be
> > > >    worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
> > > Ok, last correction. redirect takes the name of the jvmRoute, not that
> > > of the worker. So those two configuration entries should be
> > >
> > > worker.c2t2.redirect=tomcat1
> > > worker.c1t1.redirect=tomcat2
> > >
> > >
> > argh you're right, but with my work around you can avoid dealing with the
> > route, it is a bit more scalable.
> >
> > I implement a workaround by dealing with lbfactor :
> > worker.c1t1.lbfactor=100
> > worker.c1t1.redirect=cluster1
> >
> > worker.c1t2.lbfactor=1
> > worker.c1t2.redirect=cluster1
> > #worker.c1t2.activation=disabled
> >
> > It is very unlikely that i get 100 request on one server.
> > This does looks good but a pretty complex configuration if we move up to
> > three server. And complexity will increase with the number of server.
> > Seems that load balancing is easier than failover.
> I don't think lbfactor is the right solution for your problem, but I
> haven't checked it. I think your setup will pass 100 requests to worker
> c1t1 and then 1 request to worker c1t2 (probably simplified it quite a
> lot). That will trigger your servlets from your "failover" instance,
> which you wanted to circumvent.
>

I am not convinced either by my workaround of your solution but for now that
is the best solution. Still looking for a better one.
I will put an lbfactor of 100000 that will prevent any request on c1t2.
And if c1t1 faill, c1t2 will take all request.
-> I have a defacto working failover. And scalable because i can have a c1t3
with lbfactor of 1.


> As stated in my correction above, redirect takes the name of the
> jvmRoute and I doubt, that your tomcat instance is called cluster1, so
> that statement will be wrong.
>
I got it, and thanks for pointing that out, if I had rtfm correctly earlier,
I might have spare quite a lot of time.


> You are right that loadbalancing is simpler than my example with two
> clusters, but that is because your original requirement were more
> complex then simple loadbalancing.
>

> If you have the memory resources for simple loadbalancing I would go for
> it.
>

I can't afford it, as I spotted in my original mail : 1 webapp is around
400M, at any time I have 6-8webapp (and increasing) started on each server.
I would go from 5-6gig to potentialy 10-12 : i am pretty sure some people
might disagree with that (me, for one), with this solution almost all the
memory is used (few spare), if something failed : I have enough time to
react.

Regard
gui


> Regards
>  Felix
> >
> > gui
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Regards
> > >  Felix
> > > >
> > > >  Bye
> > > >   Felix
> > > > >
> > > > > You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and
> > > > > "tomcat2".
> > > > >
> > > > > To mount your webapps, you can use
> > > > >
> > > > >   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
> > > > >   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >  Felix
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> > > > >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of
> > > > >>>> third
> > > > >>>> party
> > > > >>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> > > > >>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started
> (more
> > > > >>>> than
> > > > >>>> 300M).
> > > > >>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat
> > > > >>>> server 1,
> > > > >>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> My objectives are :
> > > > >>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of
> > > > >>>> server1.
> > > > >>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise
> it
> > > > >>>> might
> > > > >>>> trigger a memory overload
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
> > > > >>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> and my worker.properties as is :
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> worker.list = failover
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> # template
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
> > > > >>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> > > > >>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> > > > >>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> > > > >>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> # tomcat1
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
> > > > >>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> # tomcat2
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> > > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
> > > > >> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> # failover
> > > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > > >>>> worker.failover.type=lb
> > > > >>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I
> > > > >>>> could'nt
> > > > >>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> > > > >>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive
> > > > >>>> from the
> > > > >>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any
> server.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you
> specified
> > > > >>> by a jk
> > > > >>> mount. Servlets will
> > > > >>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request
> to
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>> servlet.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
> > > > >> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
> > > > >> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are
> > > > >> instanciate and
> > > > >> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
> > > > >> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be
> instanciate
> > > > >> only on
> > > > >> one server.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting
> > > > >>> in the
> > > > >>> "failover" tomcat. But it
> > > > >>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared
> > > > >> classes,
> > > > >> jar, etc...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover
> > > > >>> worker
> > > > >>> instead of a direct redirect like
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
> > > > >>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare
> it
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to
> > > > >> contact it
> > > > >> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another
> worker
> > > > >> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> thanks
> > > > >> gui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
> Felix,
> 
> Dis you check my workaround ?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> 
> > Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> > > > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
> > > > define two clusters:
> > > >
> > > >   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
> > > >
> > >  ...
> > > >   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
> > > >   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
> > > >   worker.c2t2.port=9002
> > > >   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
> > >  Aargh, this should be
> > >    worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
> > Ok, last correction. redirect takes the name of the jvmRoute, not that
> > of the worker. So those two configuration entries should be
> >
> > worker.c2t2.redirect=tomcat1
> > worker.c1t1.redirect=tomcat2
> >
> >
> argh you're right, but with my work around you can avoid dealing with the
> route, it is a bit more scalable.
> 
> I implement a workaround by dealing with lbfactor :
> worker.c1t1.lbfactor=100
> worker.c1t1.redirect=cluster1
> 
> worker.c1t2.lbfactor=1
> worker.c1t2.redirect=cluster1
> #worker.c1t2.activation=disabled
> 
> It is very unlikely that i get 100 request on one server.
> This does looks good but a pretty complex configuration if we move up to
> three server. And complexity will increase with the number of server.
> Seems that load balancing is easier than failover.
I don't think lbfactor is the right solution for your problem, but I
haven't checked it. I think your setup will pass 100 requests to worker
c1t1 and then 1 request to worker c1t2 (probably simplified it quite a
lot). That will trigger your servlets from your "failover" instance,
which you wanted to circumvent.

As stated in my correction above, redirect takes the name of the
jvmRoute and I doubt, that your tomcat instance is called cluster1, so
that statement will be wrong.

You are right that loadbalancing is simpler than my example with two
clusters, but that is because your original requirement were more
complex then simple loadbalancing.

If you have the memory resources for simple loadbalancing I would go for
it.

Regards
 Felix
> 
> gui
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Regards
> >  Felix
> > >
> > >  Bye
> > >   Felix
> > > >
> > > > You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and
> > > > "tomcat2".
> > > >
> > > > To mount your webapps, you can use
> > > >
> > > >   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
> > > >   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >  Felix
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> > > >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of
> > > >>>> third
> > > >>>> party
> > > >>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> > > >>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more
> > > >>>> than
> > > >>>> 300M).
> > > >>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat
> > > >>>> server 1,
> > > >>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> My objectives are :
> > > >>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of
> > > >>>> server1.
> > > >>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it
> > > >>>> might
> > > >>>> trigger a memory overload
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
> > > >>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> and my worker.properties as is :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> worker.list = failover
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> # template
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
> > > >>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> > > >>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> > > >>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> > > >>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> # tomcat1
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
> > > >>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> # tomcat2
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> > > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
> > > >> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> # failover
> > > >>>> # ------------------------
> > > >>>> worker.failover.type=lb
> > > >>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I
> > > >>>> could'nt
> > > >>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> > > >>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive
> > > >>>> from the
> > > >>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified
> > > >>> by a jk
> > > >>> mount. Servlets will
> > > >>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> servlet.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
> > > >> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
> > > >> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are
> > > >> instanciate and
> > > >> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
> > > >> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate
> > > >> only on
> > > >> one server.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting
> > > >>> in the
> > > >>> "failover" tomcat. But it
> > > >>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared
> > > >> classes,
> > > >> jar, etc...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover
> > > >>> worker
> > > >>> instead of a direct redirect like
> > > >>>
> > > >>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
> > > >>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it
> > > >> in the
> > > >> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to
> > > >> contact it
> > > >> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
> > > >> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
> > > >>
> > > >> thanks
> > > >> gui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Felix,

Dis you check my workaround ?


On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> > > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
> > > define two clusters:
> > >
> > >   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
> > >
> >  ...
> > >   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
> > >   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
> > >   worker.c2t2.port=9002
> > >   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
> >  Aargh, this should be
> >    worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
> Ok, last correction. redirect takes the name of the jvmRoute, not that
> of the worker. So those two configuration entries should be
>
> worker.c2t2.redirect=tomcat1
> worker.c1t1.redirect=tomcat2
>
>
argh you're right, but with my work around you can avoid dealing with the
route, it is a bit more scalable.

I implement a workaround by dealing with lbfactor :
worker.c1t1.lbfactor=100
worker.c1t1.redirect=cluster1

worker.c1t2.lbfactor=1
worker.c1t2.redirect=cluster1
#worker.c1t2.activation=disabled

It is very unlikely that i get 100 request on one server.
This does looks good but a pretty complex configuration if we move up to
three server. And complexity will increase with the number of server.
Seems that load balancing is easier than failover.

gui




> Regards
>  Felix
> >
> >  Bye
> >   Felix
> > >
> > > You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and
> > > "tomcat2".
> > >
> > > To mount your webapps, you can use
> > >
> > >   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
> > >   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >  Felix
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> > >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of
> > >>>> third
> > >>>> party
> > >>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> > >>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more
> > >>>> than
> > >>>> 300M).
> > >>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat
> > >>>> server 1,
> > >>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My objectives are :
> > >>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of
> > >>>> server1.
> > >>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it
> > >>>> might
> > >>>> trigger a memory overload
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
> > >>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and my worker.properties as is :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> worker.list = failover
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> # template
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
> > >>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> > >>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> > >>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> > >>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> # tomcat1
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> > >>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> > >>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
> > >>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> # tomcat2
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> > >>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> > >>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> > >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > >>>>
> > >>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
> > >> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> # failover
> > >>>> # ------------------------
> > >>>> worker.failover.type=lb
> > >>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I
> > >>>> could'nt
> > >>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> > >>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive
> > >>>> from the
> > >>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified
> > >>> by a jk
> > >>> mount. Servlets will
> > >>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to
> > >>> a
> > >>> servlet.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
> > >> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
> > >> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are
> > >> instanciate and
> > >> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
> > >> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate
> > >> only on
> > >> one server.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting
> > >>> in the
> > >>> "failover" tomcat. But it
> > >>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared
> > >> classes,
> > >> jar, etc...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover
> > >>> worker
> > >>> instead of a direct redirect like
> > >>>
> > >>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
> > >>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it
> > >> in the
> > >> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to
> > >> contact it
> > >> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
> > >> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
> > >>
> > >> thanks
> > >> gui
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
> > define two clusters:
> >
> >   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
> >
>  ...
> >   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
> >   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
> >   worker.c2t2.port=9002
> >   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
>  Aargh, this should be
>    worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1
Ok, last correction. redirect takes the name of the jvmRoute, not that
of the worker. So those two configuration entries should be

worker.c2t2.redirect=tomcat1
worker.c1t1.redirect=tomcat2

Regards
 Felix
> 
>  Bye
>   Felix
> >
> > You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and 
> > "tomcat2".
> >
> > To mount your webapps, you can use
> >
> >   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
> >   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
> >
> > Regards
> >  Felix
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> >> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of 
> >>>> third
> >>>> party
> >>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> >>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more 
> >>>> than
> >>>> 300M).
> >>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat 
> >>>> server 1,
> >>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
> >>>>
> >>>> My objectives are :
> >>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of 
> >>>> server1.
> >>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it 
> >>>> might
> >>>> trigger a memory overload
> >>>>
> >>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
> >>>>
> >>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
> >>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> and my worker.properties as is :
> >>>>
> >>>> worker.list = failover
> >>>>
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> # template
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
> >>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> >>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> >>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> >>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
> >>>>
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> # tomcat1
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> >>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> >>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
> >>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
> >>>>
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> # tomcat2
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> >>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> >>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> >>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> >>>>
> >>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
> >> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> >>
> >>
> >>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> # failover
> >>>> # ------------------------
> >>>> worker.failover.type=lb
> >>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
> >>>>
> >>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
> >>>>
> >>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I 
> >>>> could'nt
> >>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> >>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive 
> >>>> from the
> >>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
> >>>>
> >>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified 
> >>> by a jk
> >>> mount. Servlets will
> >>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to 
> >>> a
> >>> servlet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
> >> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
> >> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are 
> >> instanciate and
> >> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
> >> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate 
> >> only on
> >> one server.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting 
> >>> in the
> >>> "failover" tomcat. But it
> >>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared 
> >> classes,
> >> jar, etc...
> >>
> >>
> >>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover 
> >>> worker
> >>> instead of a direct redirect like
> >>>
> >>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
> >>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
> >>>
> >>>
> >> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it 
> >> in the
> >> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to 
> >> contact it
> >> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
> >> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> gui
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
 On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
> define two clusters:
>
>   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
>
 ...
>   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
>   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
>   worker.c2t2.port=9002
>   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
 Aargh, this should be
   worker.c2t2.redirect=c2t1

 Bye
  Felix
>
> You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and 
> "tomcat2".
>
> To mount your webapps, you can use
>
>   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
>   JkMount /DEF* cluster2
>
> Regards
>  Felix
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of 
>>>> third
>>>> party
>>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more 
>>>> than
>>>> 300M).
>>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat 
>>>> server 1,
>>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>>>>
>>>> My objectives are :
>>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of 
>>>> server1.
>>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it 
>>>> might
>>>> trigger a memory overload
>>>>
>>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>>>>
>>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and my worker.properties as is :
>>>>
>>>> worker.list = failover
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # template
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # tomcat1
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # tomcat2
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>>>
>>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
>> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>
>>
>>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # failover
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.failover.type=lb
>>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>>>>
>>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>>>>
>>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I 
>>>> could'nt
>>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
>>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive 
>>>> from the
>>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>>>>
>>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified 
>>> by a jk
>>> mount. Servlets will
>>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to 
>>> a
>>> servlet.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
>> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
>> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are 
>> instanciate and
>> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
>> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate 
>> only on
>> one server.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting 
>>> in the
>>> "failover" tomcat. But it
>>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>>>
>>
>> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared 
>> classes,
>> jar, etc...
>>
>>
>>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover 
>>> worker
>>> instead of a direct redirect like
>>>
>>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
>>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>>>
>>>
>> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it 
>> in the
>> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to 
>> contact it
>> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
>> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
>>
>> thanks
>> gui
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Felix, that might do the trick. I'll test it and get back to you.
nice hack BTW.
gui

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your answer Felix,
>>
> Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to define
> two clusters:
>
>  worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
>
> where each cluster worker has two distinct members
>
>  worker.cluster1.type=lb
>  worker.cluster1.balance_workers=c1t1,c1t2
>
>  worker.cluster2.type=lb
>  worker.cluster2.balance_workers=c2t1,c2t2
>
> and four worker for your two tomcats
>
>  # workers for cluster1
>  worker.c1t1.route=tomcat1
>  worker.c1t1.type=ajp13
>  worker.c1t1.host=localhost
>  worker.c1t1.port=9001
>  worker.c1t1.redirect=c1t2
>
>  worker.c1t2.route=tomcat2
>  worker.c1t2.type=ajp13
>  worker.c1t2.host=localhost
>  worker.c1t2.port=9002
>  worker.c1t2.activation=disabled
>
>  # workers for cluster2
>  worker.c2t1.route=tomcat1
>  worker.c2t1.type=ajp13
>  worker.c2t1.host=localhost
>  worker.c2t1.port=9001
>  worker.c2t1.activation=disabled
>
>  worker.c2t2.route=tomcat2
>  worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
>  worker.c2t2.host=localhost
>  worker.c2t2.port=9002
>  worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1
>
> You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and "tomcat2".
>
> To mount your webapps, you can use
>
>  JkMount /ABC* cluster1
>  JkMount /DEF* cluster2
>
> Regards
>
>  Felix
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
>>>> party
>>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
>>>> 300M).
>>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server
>>>> 1,
>>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>>>>
>>>> My objectives are :
>>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
>>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it might
>>>> trigger a memory overload
>>>>
>>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>>>>
>>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and my worker.properties as is :
>>>>
>>>> worker.list = failover
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # template
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # tomcat1
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # tomcat2
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>>>
>>>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
>> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>
>>
>>   worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> # failover
>>>> # ------------------------
>>>> worker.failover.type=lb
>>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>>>>
>>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>>>>
>>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I could'nt
>>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
>>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from the
>>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>>>>
>>>>  Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified by
>>> a jk
>>> mount. Servlets will
>>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to a
>>> servlet.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
>> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
>> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are instanciate
>> and
>> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
>> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate only
>> on
>> one server.
>>
>>
>>
>>  So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting in the
>>> "failover" tomcat. But it
>>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>>>
>>>
>> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared classes,
>> jar, etc...
>>
>>
>>  That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover worker
>>> instead of a direct redirect like
>>>
>>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
>>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>>>
>>>
>>>  But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it in
>> the
>> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to contact
>> it
>> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
>> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
>>
>> thanks
>> gui
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
 On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> Thanks for your answer Felix,
 Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to 
 define two clusters:

   worker.list=cluster1,cluster2

 where each cluster worker has two distinct members

   worker.cluster1.type=lb
   worker.cluster1.balance_workers=c1t1,c1t2

   worker.cluster2.type=lb
   worker.cluster2.balance_workers=c2t1,c2t2

 and four worker for your two tomcats

   # workers for cluster1
   worker.c1t1.route=tomcat1
   worker.c1t1.type=ajp13
   worker.c1t1.host=localhost
   worker.c1t1.port=9001
   worker.c1t1.redirect=c1t2

   worker.c1t2.route=tomcat2
   worker.c1t2.type=ajp13
   worker.c1t2.host=localhost
   worker.c1t2.port=9002
   worker.c1t2.activation=disabled

   # workers for cluster2
   worker.c2t1.route=tomcat1
   worker.c2t1.type=ajp13
   worker.c2t1.host=localhost
   worker.c2t1.port=9001
   worker.c2t1.activation=disabled

   worker.c2t2.route=tomcat2
   worker.c2t2.type=ajp13
   worker.c2t2.host=localhost
   worker.c2t2.port=9002
   worker.c2t2.redirect=c1t1

 You will have to set "jvmRoute" in your tomcats to "tomcat1" and 
 "tomcat2".

 To mount your webapps, you can use

   JkMount /ABC* cluster1
   JkMount /DEF* cluster2

 Regards
  Felix

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of 
>>> third
>>> party
>>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more 
>>> than
>>> 300M).
>>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat 
>>> server 1,
>>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>>>
>>> My objectives are :
>>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of 
>>> server1.
>>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it 
>>> might
>>> trigger a memory overload
>>>
>>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>>>
>>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>>>
>>>
>>> and my worker.properties as is :
>>>
>>> worker.list = failover
>>>
>>> # ------------------------
>>> # template
>>> # ------------------------
>>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>>>
>>> # ------------------------
>>> # tomcat1
>>> # ------------------------
>>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>>>
>>> # ------------------------
>>> # tomcat2
>>> # ------------------------
>>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>>
>>               ^ is this correct or a typo?
>
>
> Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
> worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>
>
>>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>>>
>>>
>>> # ------------------------
>>> # failover
>>> # ------------------------
>>> worker.failover.type=lb
>>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>>>
>>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>>>
>>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I 
>>> could'nt
>>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
>>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from 
>>> the
>>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>>>
>> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified 
>> by a jk
>> mount. Servlets will
>> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to 
>> a
>> servlet.
>>
>>
> Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
> 1) tomcat starts all webapps
> 2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are 
> instanciate and
> therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
> I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate 
> only on
> one server.
>
>
>
>> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting in 
>> the
>> "failover" tomcat. But it
>> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>>
>
> I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared 
> classes,
> jar, etc...
>
>
>> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover 
>> worker
>> instead of a direct redirect like
>>
>> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
>> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>>
>>
> But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it 
> in the
> worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to 
> contact it
> instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
> -> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.
>
> thanks
> gui


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your answer Felix,


On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
>> party
>> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
>> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
>> 300M).
>> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server 1,
>> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>>
>> My objectives are :
>> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
>> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it might
>> trigger a memory overload
>>
>> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>>
>> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>>  JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>>
>>
>> and my worker.properties as is :
>>
>> worker.list = failover
>>
>> # ------------------------
>> # template
>> # ------------------------
>> worker.template.type=ajp13
>> worker.template.lbfactor=1
>> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
>> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
>> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>>
>> # ------------------------
>> # tomcat1
>> # ------------------------
>> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
>> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
>> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>>
>> # ------------------------
>> # tomcat2
>> # ------------------------
>> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
>> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
>> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
>> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
>>
>               ^ is this correct or a typo?


Sorry for the typo, you're right : it is in fact :
worker.tomcat2.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*


>  worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>>
>>
>> # ------------------------
>> # failover
>> # ------------------------
>> worker.failover.type=lb
>> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>>
>> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>>
>> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I could'nt
>> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
>> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from the
>> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>>
> Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified by a jk
> mount. Servlets will
> only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to a
> servlet.
>
>
Ok, maybe I should clarify that :
1) tomcat starts all webapps
2) when a users connect to a specific webapp all objects are instanciate and
therefore the memory footprint drasticaly increase.
I want to work on the second point : a webapp should be instanciate only on
one server.



> So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting in the
> "failover" tomcat. But it
> should be possible to limit its memory footprint.
>

I have done some optimisation here and already removed all shared classes,
jar, etc...


> That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover worker
> instead of a direct redirect like
>
> worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
> worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1
>
>
But that would mean (solution already tested) : I have to declare it in the
worker list, so when a server fail httpd will continue to try to contact it
instead of contacting the failover worker and find a another worker
-> even if it works it would only work for 2 servers not for 3.

thanks
gui

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
 On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of 
> third party
> webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more 
> than
> 300M).
> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat 
> server 1,
> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>
> My objectives are :
> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it 
> might
> trigger a memory overload
>
> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>
> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>   JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>
>
> and my worker.properties as is :
>
> worker.list = failover
>
> # ------------------------
> # template
> # ------------------------
> worker.template.type=ajp13
> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>
> # ------------------------
> # tomcat1
> # ------------------------
> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>
> # ------------------------
> # tomcat2
> # ------------------------
> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
                ^ is this correct or a typo?
> worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>
>
> # ------------------------
> # failover
> # ------------------------
> worker.failover.type=lb
> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>
> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>
> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I 
> could'nt
> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from 
> the
> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
 Tomcat starts all webapps it can find, not only those you specified by 
 a jk mount. Servlets will
 only start, if you specify a startup order, or trigger a request to a 
 servlet.

 So I don't think it is possible to prevent a webapp from starting in 
 the "failover" tomcat. But it
 should be possible to limit its memory footprint.

 That said, I find it strange, that you define a special failover worker 
 instead of a direct redirect like

 worker.tomcat1.redirect=tomcat2
 worker.tomcat2.redirect=tomcat1

 Bye
  Felix
>
> I must say i am quite stuck here. Would anyone get an idea ?
>
> regards
> gui


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

Re: pure tomcat failover (no loadbalacing)

Posted by Guillaume Favier <gf...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the double post, but I didn't see any remarks on this thread.
This a tricky question (at least for me), and I am a bit stuck here.

thanks
gui


Hi,
>
> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
> party webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
> 300M).
> I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server 1,
> and connection to webapps DEF* to be handled by tomcat server 2.
>
> My objectives are :
> * server 1 to be failover of server2 and server2 failover of server1.
> * any webapp should be instanciate on only one server otherwise it might
> trigger a memory overload
>
> So I set up my httpd.conf as is :
>
> JkWorkersFile "conf/worker.properties"
>   JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat
>
>
> and my worker.properties as is :
>
> worker.list = failover
>
> # ------------------------
> # template
> # ------------------------
> worker.template.type=ajp13
> worker.template.lbfactor=1
> worker.template.connection_pool_timeout=600
> worker.template.socket_timeout=1000
> worker.template.fail_on_status=500
>
> # ------------------------
> # tomcat1
> # ------------------------
> worker.tomcat1.reference=worker.template
> worker.tomcat1.port=9001
> worker.tomcat1.host=localhost
> worker.tomcat1.mount=/ABC* /ABC/*
>  worker.tomcat1.redirect=failover
>
> # ------------------------
> # tomcat2
> # ------------------------
> worker.tomcat2.reference=worker.template
> worker.tomcat2.port=9002
> worker.tomcat2.host=localhost
> worker.tomcat1.mount=/DEF* /DEF/*
> worker.tomcat2.redirect=failover
>
>
> # ------------------------
> # failover
> # ------------------------
> worker.failover.type=lb
> worker.failover.balance_workers=tomcat1,tomcat2
>
> The jvmroute is set in both server.xml.
>
> Previously I had put the jkMount directive in httpd.conf, but I could'nt
> make the failover work. So I move it in the worker.properties.
> Tomcat doesn't seem to take into account the jkmount directive from the
> worker.properties : a webapp is started indifrently on any server.
>
> I must say i am quite stuck here. Would anyone get an idea ?
>
> regards
> gui
>