You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/22 21:59:53 UTC
[users@httpd] Server affinity instead of session affinity
Hi guys!
There is any available configuration to define server affinity instead of
session affinity? Our architecture setup is based on multiple JVMs (tomcat)
instances in each server (machine). The goal is to send all requests (within
a session) from a client browser to the same machine. Is it possible to
perform it using jvmRoute?
Thanks a lot
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 23/11/2010 14:41, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 11/23/2010 5:12 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/11/2010 00:06, Andrew Hole wrote:
>>> There is a middleware-to-middleware connection between Tomcat A and Tomcat B
>>> using RMI (point-to-point protocol) and Tomcat A has in-memory data useful
>>> to App3.
>>> The same aproach in the second server: applications in tomcat d have RMI
>>> communication to tomcat c.
>
>> I don't think there is a way to do this in mod_jk configuration. One way
>> to do this would be base affinity on client IP address. You should be
>> able to do something like the following in httpd:
>> - get client IP address
>> - if last octet is odd, redirect to machine 1
>> - else, redirect to machine 2
>
> What about Chuck's suggestion of having multiple JVMs with the same
> jvmRoute?
It won't work. Apps are routed independently.
If every Tomcat instance was running every app then the session ID can
be shared between the apps and you get more options.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 11/23/2010 5:12 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/11/2010 00:06, Andrew Hole wrote:
>> There is a middleware-to-middleware connection between Tomcat A and Tomcat B
>> using RMI (point-to-point protocol) and Tomcat A has in-memory data useful
>> to App3.
>> The same aproach in the second server: applications in tomcat d have RMI
>> communication to tomcat c.
>
> I don't think there is a way to do this in mod_jk configuration. One way
> to do this would be base affinity on client IP address. You should be
> able to do something like the following in httpd:
> - get client IP address
> - if last octet is odd, redirect to machine 1
> - else, redirect to machine 2
What about Chuck's suggestion of having multiple JVMs with the same
jvmRoute?
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkzr0pgACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCiUQCgmPrNHGz1bfUF0qmSfAOVfziA
RUEAn1s2Fa5LoFa/CB9YOAdovXtSLIrX
=zcqz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 23/11/2010 00:06, Andrew Hole wrote:
> There is a middleware-to-middleware connection between Tomcat A and Tomcat B
> using RMI (point-to-point protocol) and Tomcat A has in-memory data useful
> to App3.
> The same aproach in the second server: applications in tomcat d have RMI
> communication to tomcat c.
I don't think there is a way to do this in mod_jk configuration. One way
to do this would be base affinity on client IP address. You should be
able to do something like the following in httpd:
- get client IP address
- if last octet is odd, redirect to machine 1
- else, redirect to machine 2
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Mario Kleinsasser <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> André,
>
> On 11/23/2010 10:27 AM, André Warnier wrote:
> > With the configuration below and your explanations, I suppose that there
> > is some kind of load-balancing going on between the two machines.
> > What is used at the front-end to load-balance ?
> >
> > An idea (for the moment vague) would be to use some intelligent
> > front-end, which would decide (maybe as Mark wrote, in function of the
> > client IP address) to start chanelling one client to either machine 1 or
> > machine 2 - and within it to Tomcat A,B,C or D - , set a cookie, and use
> > this cookie later to keep sending the same client to the same back-end
> > machine.
> > Kind of a session on top of a session..
>
> I believe there was a presentation at ApacheCon where someone presented
> something like this. I didn't attend, but I heard that a relatively
> simply use of httpd's mod_headers was used to essentially synthesize
> sticky sessions.
>
> The same technique could be applied to do a sort of "server stickiness":
>
> 1. Check the request for a SERVER_AFFINITY cookie
> 2. If none exists, choose a server however you like and set
> SERVER_AFFINITY=A/B or D/C
> 3. Given a server affinity, send the request to a specific back-end
> server.
>
> Note that #3 can be achieved by simply choosing an AJP worker that is
> not a load-balancer.
>
>
I guess you mean that:
Header add Set-Cookie "ROUTEID=.%{BALANCER_WORKER_ROUTE}e; path=/"
env=BALANCER_ROUTE_CHANGED
<Proxy balancer://mycluster>
BalancerMember http://192.168.1.50:80 route=1
BalancerMember http://192.168.1.51:80 route=2
ProxySet stickysession=ROUTEID
</Proxy>
ProxyPass /test balancer://mycluster
>From http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html.
Thats working quite good even for not "Apache" backends like IIS. (To make
basic client affinity possible)
Maybe this could be used to stick the whole "Client" to one backend by the
first request?
If there is an entry context to set this cookie, it should be possible to
stick the client to the backend for the following contexts - maybe.
Mario
--
http://www.n0r1sk.com
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
And regarding your question;
~Why can you not run all apps within one single JVM/Tomcat ?
Because we have a lot of web applications and we are using 32-bit JVM.
Thanks a lot
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm reading about domain directive in worker properties. I can setup
> different workers to be in the same domain (p.e. a machine) and have "domain
> affinity". Do you have some idea how it really works?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Christopher Schultz <
> chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> André,
>>
>> On 11/23/2010 10:27 AM, André Warnier wrote:
>> > With the configuration below and your explanations, I suppose that there
>> > is some kind of load-balancing going on between the two machines.
>> > What is used at the front-end to load-balance ?
>> >
>> > An idea (for the moment vague) would be to use some intelligent
>> > front-end, which would decide (maybe as Mark wrote, in function of the
>> > client IP address) to start chanelling one client to either machine 1 or
>> > machine 2 - and within it to Tomcat A,B,C or D - , set a cookie, and use
>> > this cookie later to keep sending the same client to the same back-end
>> > machine.
>> > Kind of a session on top of a session..
>>
>> I believe there was a presentation at ApacheCon where someone presented
>> something like this. I didn't attend, but I heard that a relatively
>> simply use of httpd's mod_headers was used to essentially synthesize
>> sticky sessions.
>>
>> The same technique could be applied to do a sort of "server stickiness":
>>
>> 1. Check the request for a SERVER_AFFINITY cookie
>> 2. If none exists, choose a server however you like and set
>> SERVER_AFFINITY=A/B or D/C
>> 3. Given a server affinity, send the request to a specific back-end
>> server.
>>
>> Note that #3 can be achieved by simply choosing an AJP worker that is
>> not a load-balancer.
>>
>> - -chris
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkzsK6kACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCZWACgwBnHTtm61U3tRM1QXP1w+Tdp
>> EOQAn0YPzA8SVbO589e+V++qS8fS2cIl
>> =Hh7E
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 23/11/2010 23:34, André Warnier wrote:
> Andrew Hole wrote:
>> I'm reading about domain directive in worker properties. I can setup
>> different workers to be in the same domain (p.e. a machine) and have
>> "domain
>> affinity". Do you have some idea how it really works?
>>
>
> No, but it kind of sounds like what you want to achieve, doesn't it ?
> You could try it, and see how it goes.
> It sounds like you would need to add one directive to each worker, like
>
> worker.tomcatA.domain=machine1
> worker.tomcatB.domain=machine1
>
> worker.tomcatC.domain=machine2
> worker.tomcatD.domain=machine2
>
> and it would then balance between machine1 and machine2, instead of
> between the workers themselves. But it also sounds like tomcatA and
> tomcatB would have to be configured as a "cluster", and have some
> provision to share and replicate sessions between them. That may be
> more work than you're aiming for.
>
> (I'm not sure, just guessing).
That isn't going to help keep sessions for app1 and sessions for app2 on
the same machine since httpd/IIS treats each application independently.
What it will do is require you to have clustering using the delta
manager (all sessions replicated to all nodes) working across all of the
nodes on a machine. That adds a lot of overhead for little benefit and
requires all applications are installed on every node.
Again, you'll need to look at an alternative LB approach. I've already
mentioned the client IP based approach. The other approach is adding
your own cookie (with path =/ so it applies to all apps) that you use to
make the LB sticky to a machine. You'll need to do a little config in
httpd.conf but it is quite simple.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Andrew Hole wrote:
> I'm reading about domain directive in worker properties. I can setup
> different workers to be in the same domain (p.e. a machine) and have "domain
> affinity". Do you have some idea how it really works?
>
No, but it kind of sounds like what you want to achieve, doesn't it ?
You could try it, and see how it goes.
It sounds like you would need to add one directive to each worker, like
worker.tomcatA.domain=machine1
worker.tomcatB.domain=machine1
worker.tomcatC.domain=machine2
worker.tomcatD.domain=machine2
and it would then balance between machine1 and machine2, instead of between the workers
themselves. But it also sounds like tomcatA and tomcatB would have to be configured as a
"cluster", and have some provision to share and replicate sessions between them. That may
be more work than you're aiming for.
(I'm not sure, just guessing).
So you do have an Apache in front with mod_jk then ?
Does this Apache do anything else than load-balancing the back-end Tomcats ?
And about your JVM's being 32-bit : any reason why that has to remain so ?
Are the machines themselves only 32-bit physically ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
I'm reading about domain directive in worker properties. I can setup
different workers to be in the same domain (p.e. a machine) and have "domain
affinity". Do you have some idea how it really works?
Thanks
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> André,
>
> On 11/23/2010 10:27 AM, André Warnier wrote:
> > With the configuration below and your explanations, I suppose that there
> > is some kind of load-balancing going on between the two machines.
> > What is used at the front-end to load-balance ?
> >
> > An idea (for the moment vague) would be to use some intelligent
> > front-end, which would decide (maybe as Mark wrote, in function of the
> > client IP address) to start chanelling one client to either machine 1 or
> > machine 2 - and within it to Tomcat A,B,C or D - , set a cookie, and use
> > this cookie later to keep sending the same client to the same back-end
> > machine.
> > Kind of a session on top of a session..
>
> I believe there was a presentation at ApacheCon where someone presented
> something like this. I didn't attend, but I heard that a relatively
> simply use of httpd's mod_headers was used to essentially synthesize
> sticky sessions.
>
> The same technique could be applied to do a sort of "server stickiness":
>
> 1. Check the request for a SERVER_AFFINITY cookie
> 2. If none exists, choose a server however you like and set
> SERVER_AFFINITY=A/B or D/C
> 3. Given a server affinity, send the request to a specific back-end
> server.
>
> Note that #3 can be achieved by simply choosing an AJP worker that is
> not a load-balancer.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkzsK6kACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCZWACgwBnHTtm61U3tRM1QXP1w+Tdp
> EOQAn0YPzA8SVbO589e+V++qS8fS2cIl
> =Hh7E
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 11/23/2010 10:27 AM, André Warnier wrote:
> With the configuration below and your explanations, I suppose that there
> is some kind of load-balancing going on between the two machines.
> What is used at the front-end to load-balance ?
>
> An idea (for the moment vague) would be to use some intelligent
> front-end, which would decide (maybe as Mark wrote, in function of the
> client IP address) to start chanelling one client to either machine 1 or
> machine 2 - and within it to Tomcat A,B,C or D - , set a cookie, and use
> this cookie later to keep sending the same client to the same back-end
> machine.
> Kind of a session on top of a session..
I believe there was a presentation at ApacheCon where someone presented
something like this. I didn't attend, but I heard that a relatively
simply use of httpd's mod_headers was used to essentially synthesize
sticky sessions.
The same technique could be applied to do a sort of "server stickiness":
1. Check the request for a SERVER_AFFINITY cookie
2. If none exists, choose a server however you like and set
SERVER_AFFINITY=A/B or D/C
3. Given a server affinity, send the request to a specific back-end
server.
Note that #3 can be achieved by simply choosing an AJP worker that is
not a load-balancer.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkzsK6kACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCZWACgwBnHTtm61U3tRM1QXP1w+Tdp
EOQAn0YPzA8SVbO589e+V++qS8fS2cIl
=Hh7E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
With the configuration below and your explanations, I suppose that there is some kind of
load-balancing going on between the two machines.
What is used at the front-end to load-balance ?
An idea (for the moment vague) would be to use some intelligent front-end, which would
decide (maybe as Mark wrote, in function of the client IP address) to start chanelling one
client to either machine 1 or machine 2 - and within it to Tomcat A,B,C or D - , set a
cookie, and use this cookie later to keep sending the same client to the same back-end
machine.
Kind of a session on top of a session..
There is also the question of why App1-4 have to be split between different Tomcats.
Why can you not run all apps within one single JVM/Tomcat ?
Andrew Hole wrote:
> There is a middleware-to-middleware connection between Tomcat A and Tomcat B
> using RMI (point-to-point protocol) and Tomcat A has in-memory data useful
> to App3.
> The same aproach in the second server: applications in tomcat d have RMI
> communication to tomcat c.
>
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:58 PM, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Hole wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for the inconvenience. I sent the email with wrong content.
>>>
>>> An example:
>>> Machine 1:
>>> Tomcat A
>>> App1
>>> App2
>>> Tomcat B
>>> App3
>>> App4
>>>
>>> Machine 2:
>>> Tomcat C
>>> App1
>>> App2
>>> Tomcat D
>>> App3
>>> App4
>>>
>>> Using session affinity, if I make a request to App1 and the Tomcat A in
>>> Machine 1 is selected. All the sequent requests will be redirected (within
>>> the same session) to the same Tomcat (tomcat A). However, if i make a
>>> request to App3, Tomcat B (machine 1) or Tomcat D (machine 2) could be
>>> selected. What I really want is that the request to App3 could be done to
>>> Tomcat B in machine 1 (the request was done using the same browser
>>> client).
>>>
>>> Ok, now I get it.
>> My next question is : why ?
>> Why is it important that, having started on Tomcat A with App1, the same
>> client would get App3 on Tomcat B, rather than on Tomcat D ?
>> What do Tomcat A and Tomcat B have in common, that Tomcat C and D don't ?
>> And vice-versa.
>>
>> And , should your scheme still work if in the future, Tomcat A and Tomcat B
>> were split onto two separate machines ?
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
There is a middleware-to-middleware connection between Tomcat A and Tomcat B
using RMI (point-to-point protocol) and Tomcat A has in-memory data useful
to App3.
The same aproach in the second server: applications in tomcat d have RMI
communication to tomcat c.
thanks
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:58 PM, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
> Andrew Hole wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the inconvenience. I sent the email with wrong content.
>>
>> An example:
>> Machine 1:
>> Tomcat A
>> App1
>> App2
>> Tomcat B
>> App3
>> App4
>>
>> Machine 2:
>> Tomcat C
>> App1
>> App2
>> Tomcat D
>> App3
>> App4
>>
>> Using session affinity, if I make a request to App1 and the Tomcat A in
>> Machine 1 is selected. All the sequent requests will be redirected (within
>> the same session) to the same Tomcat (tomcat A). However, if i make a
>> request to App3, Tomcat B (machine 1) or Tomcat D (machine 2) could be
>> selected. What I really want is that the request to App3 could be done to
>> Tomcat B in machine 1 (the request was done using the same browser
>> client).
>>
>> Ok, now I get it.
> My next question is : why ?
> Why is it important that, having started on Tomcat A with App1, the same
> client would get App3 on Tomcat B, rather than on Tomcat D ?
> What do Tomcat A and Tomcat B have in common, that Tomcat C and D don't ?
> And vice-versa.
>
> And , should your scheme still work if in the future, Tomcat A and Tomcat B
> were split onto two separate machines ?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Andrew Hole wrote:
> Sorry for the inconvenience. I sent the email with wrong content.
>
> An example:
> Machine 1:
> Tomcat A
> App1
> App2
> Tomcat B
> App3
> App4
>
> Machine 2:
> Tomcat C
> App1
> App2
> Tomcat D
> App3
> App4
>
> Using session affinity, if I make a request to App1 and the Tomcat A in
> Machine 1 is selected. All the sequent requests will be redirected (within
> the same session) to the same Tomcat (tomcat A). However, if i make a
> request to App3, Tomcat B (machine 1) or Tomcat D (machine 2) could be
> selected. What I really want is that the request to App3 could be done to
> Tomcat B in machine 1 (the request was done using the same browser client).
>
Ok, now I get it.
My next question is : why ?
Why is it important that, having started on Tomcat A with App1, the same client would get
App3 on Tomcat B, rather than on Tomcat D ?
What do Tomcat A and Tomcat B have in common, that Tomcat C and D don't ?
And vice-versa.
And , should your scheme still work if in the future, Tomcat A and Tomcat B were split
onto two separate machines ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the inconvenience. I sent the email with wrong content.
An example:
Machine 1:
Tomcat A
App1
App2
Tomcat B
App3
App4
Machine 2:
Tomcat C
App1
App2
Tomcat D
App3
App4
Using session affinity, if I make a request to App1 and the Tomcat A in
Machine 1 is selected. All the sequent requests will be redirected (within
the same session) to the same Tomcat (tomcat A). However, if i make a
request to App3, Tomcat B (machine 1) or Tomcat D (machine 2) could be
selected. What I really want is that the request to App3 could be done to
Tomcat B in machine 1 (the request was done using the same browser client).
Thanks
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> An example:
> Machine 1:
> Tomcat A
>
> Tomcat B
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Hole wrote:
>>
>>> No... Session affinity (jvmRoute in JSESSION ID) implies sending to the
>>> same
>>> tomcat instance (same JVM), not for the same machine.
>>>
>>> I guess that I still don't get it.
>> The same Tomcat instance /is/, per definition, on the same machine.
>>
>> Or do you want to send the request to a /different/ Tomcat instance, but
>> only one which is on the same machine ? And if yes, why would you want to do
>> that ?
>>
>> In other words, why would you /not/ want to send the request to the same
>> Tomcat on the same machine ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
An example:
Machine 1:
Tomcat A
Tomcat B
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
> Andrew Hole wrote:
>
>> No... Session affinity (jvmRoute in JSESSION ID) implies sending to the
>> same
>> tomcat instance (same JVM), not for the same machine.
>>
>> I guess that I still don't get it.
> The same Tomcat instance /is/, per definition, on the same machine.
>
> Or do you want to send the request to a /different/ Tomcat instance, but
> only one which is on the same machine ? And if yes, why would you want to do
> that ?
>
> In other words, why would you /not/ want to send the request to the same
> Tomcat on the same machine ?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Andrew Hole wrote:
> No... Session affinity (jvmRoute in JSESSION ID) implies sending to the same
> tomcat instance (same JVM), not for the same machine.
>
I guess that I still don't get it.
The same Tomcat instance /is/, per definition, on the same machine.
Or do you want to send the request to a /different/ Tomcat instance, but only one which is
on the same machine ? And if yes, why would you want to do that ?
In other words, why would you /not/ want to send the request to the same Tomcat on the
same machine ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Andrew Hole <an...@gmail.com>.
No... Session affinity (jvmRoute in JSESSION ID) implies sending to the same
tomcat instance (same JVM), not for the same machine.
Some idea?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
> Andrew Hole wrote:
>
>> Hi guys!
>>
>> There is any available configuration to define server affinity instead of
>> session affinity? Our architecture setup is based on multiple JVMs
>> (tomcat)
>> instances in each server (machine). The goal is to send all requests
>> (within
>> a session) from a client browser to the same machine. Is it possible to
>> perform it using jvmRoute?
>>
>> I am not sure I understand the question correctly, but if I do, that's
> what it does, no ?
> Does sending to the same Tomcat not imply sending to the same machine ?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Andrew Hole wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> There is any available configuration to define server affinity instead of
> session affinity? Our architecture setup is based on multiple JVMs (tomcat)
> instances in each server (machine). The goal is to send all requests (within
> a session) from a client browser to the same machine. Is it possible to
> perform it using jvmRoute?
>
I am not sure I understand the question correctly, but if I do, that's what it does, no ?
Does sending to the same Tomcat not imply sending to the same machine ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by Jeroen Geilman <je...@adaptr.nl>.
On 11/22/2010 09:59 PM, Andrew Hole wrote:
> Hi guys!
> There is any available configuration to define server affinity instead
> of session affinity? Our architecture setup is based on multiple JVMs
> (tomcat) instances in each server (machine). The goal is to send all
> requests (within a session) from a client browser to the same machine.
Still sounds like session affinity to me.
> Is it possible to perform it using jvmRoute?
Perhaps ask in a tomcat-related forum.
> Thanks a lot
--
J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: Server affinity instead of session affinity
Posted by "Caldarale, Charles R" <Ch...@unisys.com>.
> From: Andrew Hole [mailto:andremailinglist@gmail.com]
> Subject: Server affinity instead of session affinity
> The goal is to send all requests (within a session) from a
> client browser to the same machine. Is it possible to
> perform it using jvmRoute?
Can't you just set the jvmRoute value for each Tomcat on the same box to the same value? That would presume you're doing something to share sessions across all of the Tomcats running on one box.
- Chuck
P.S. Don't cross-post.
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org