Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
There has been couple of major bug fixes against 1.2.14, see: http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html They have been fixed in the CVS, and since couple of them actually makes 1.2.14 unusable on some platforms like Solaris 2.8 and Irix we need a release. I plan to tag the 1.2.15 by the end of this week, and pursue for a vote next week for this bug-fixing release. Any objections? Since there were no objections I plan to tag the 1.2.15 later this evening at 19:00 GMT. This will eventually be the last release from CVS, cause IIUC the transition will be made this weekend. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Hey Mladen, can we also integrate the better domain loadbalancer support at jk_lb_worker.c? I think that we don't change the lb_value inside sticky mode at every request. Can we comment out or remove lines L413-431? Thanks, Peter Mladen Turk schrieb: There has been couple of major bug fixes against 1.2.14, see: http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html They have been fixed in the CVS, and since couple of them actually makes 1.2.14 unusable on some platforms like Solaris 2.8 and Irix we need a release. I plan to tag the 1.2.15 by the end of this week, and pursue for a vote next week for this bug-fixing release. Any objections? Since there were no objections I plan to tag the 1.2.15 later this evening at 19:00 GMT. This will eventually be the last release from CVS, cause IIUC the transition will be made this weekend. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Hi Peter, Mladen and all others, I would like to follow Mladens suggestion from earlier this month to create a list of precise use cases for the load balancing, failover and administrative downtime scenarios. I think from that we might end up by a better understandable overal lb design. I expect, that we will find the need for bigger changes to lb. Maybe after we know what we need to do, we can decide if we start 1.3, or if the changes with respect to functionality are still small enough to call them 1.2.16. I unfortunately didn't go deeply into Peter's bug report, because I wanted to go into it when writing up use cases. So I'm not sure, if the proposed changes are a bug fix (then it's OK for last minute 1.2.15) or maybe should better be decided together with a complete view of lb use cases (then 1.3 or 1.2.16). Rainer Hey Mladen, can we also integrate the better domain loadbalancer support at jk_lb_worker.c? I think that we don't change the lb_value inside sticky mode at every request. Can we comment out or remove lines L413-431? Thanks, Peter Mladen Turk schrieb: There has been couple of major bug fixes against 1.2.14, see: http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html They have been fixed in the CVS, and since couple of them actually makes 1.2.14 unusable on some platforms like Solaris 2.8 and Irix we need a release. I plan to tag the 1.2.15 by the end of this week, and pursue for a vote next week for this bug-fixing release. Any objections? Since there were no objections I plan to tag the 1.2.15 later this evening at 19:00 GMT. This will eventually be the last release from CVS, cause IIUC the transition will be made this weekend. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Rainer Jung wrote: Hi Peter, Mladen and all others, I would like to follow Mladens suggestion from earlier this month to create a list of precise use cases for the load balancing, failover and administrative downtime scenarios. I think from that we might end up by a better understandable overal lb design. I expect, that we will find the need for bigger changes to lb. +1 -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Peter Rossbach wrote: Hey Mladen, can we also integrate the better domain loadbalancer support at jk_lb_worker.c? I think that we don't change the lb_value inside sticky mode at every request. Yes we do. They will be updated only for domain workers. This is needed to load balance between the workers that are members of the same domain. In other case the total_factor will be zero and lb_value will not be changed. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Rainer Jung wrote: Hi Peter, Mladen and all others, I would like to follow Mladens suggestion from earlier this month to create a list of precise use cases for the load balancing, failover and administrative downtime scenarios. Right. The SVN transition is in progress, so it might be as well a good chance to create a 1.3 branch we are talking about for more then a year. Cleaning unused and dead code is one thing, and the other is making those use-cases for load balancer. I've tagged the 1.2.15 as the last one from the CVS, so if it will be voted as stable, fine, if not, we'll pursue for 1.2.16 from 1.2 branch. All new stuff and eventual config changes should go to the 1.3. branch. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Yes, is is only a real problem when workers are grouped inside an domain. I have check this many times and without the lb_value change loadbalancing works as I aspected, and with it not. I also think that we need a real lb concept check. Greater changes can we better realize after jk 2.1.15. But this little change was very helpful at some of my production customers sites :-) Peter Mladen Turk schrieb: Peter Rossbach wrote: Hey Mladen, can we also integrate the better domain loadbalancer support at jk_lb_worker.c? I think that we don't change the lb_value inside sticky mode at every request. Yes we do. They will be updated only for domain workers. This is needed to load balance between the workers that are members of the same domain. In other case the total_factor will be zero and lb_value will not be changed. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Releasing JK 1.2.15
Both users tried with CVS head and the patch works for IRIX and Solaris. No objections to releasing. Hi, There has been couple of major bug fixes against 1.2.14, see: http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/changelog.html They have been fixed in the CVS, and since couple of them actually makes 1.2.14 unusable on some platforms like Solaris 2.8 and Irix we need a release. I plan to tag the 1.2.15 by the end of this week, and pursue for a vote next week for this bug-fixing release. Any objections? Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
