On 6/18/06, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/18/2006 04:03 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 06/17/2006 08:57 AM, Alexander Lazic wrote:
On Sam 17.06.2006 00:54, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
From my current point of view the answer is: No, this is not
possible
out of the box.
It
Call for Papers for ApacheCon US 2006 is currently open!
ApacheCon US 2006 will be held at the Hilton Hotel in Austin, Texas,
October 9-13, 2006.
The ASF and the conference producer—Full Circle Productions— invite
the Open Source community to send in session and tutorial proposals
for ApacheCon
On 6/16/06, Shanti Subramanyam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Mads.
I've re-generated the PATCH with the Studio URL :
--- README.platformsFri Jun 16 13:58:10 2006
+++ README.platforms.orig Thu Jun 15 13:13:50 2006
@@ -95,12 +95,4 @@
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing algorithm.
Does reply
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing algorithm.
Does reply
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If this maps what's currently been done in mod_jk, than
a big +1. It's been on my todo but have simply not
had the cycles to do.
That is exactly the thing that I'm planing to do.
During last year there was a lots of good stuff
added to the mod_jk that have even force some
Hi,
We had a scenario where the worker MPM was not performing as expected.
The bottleneck was identified as a single CGI daemon not being able to
cope with the volume of CGI requests coming in. So I made some changes
to convert the single process CGI daemon to multi-process. On multiple
CPU
Mladen Turk wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Once mod_proxy has access to lots of interesting bits, it can be
programmed to detect and respond to anomalous application behaviors
Huh, the thing you are talking about is some sort of
rule based engine. Without having a virtual file system
Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
Hi,
We had a scenario where the worker MPM was not performing as expected.
The bottleneck was identified as a single CGI daemon not being able to
cope with the volume of CGI requests coming in. So I made some changes
to convert the single process CGI daemon to
Hi,
sorry for breaking the mail threading, but I read this list offline
before and just subscribed to it now.
I would like to release mod_jk 1.2.16 soon, but as soon as that release
looks good, I would be willing to help syncing features between
mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp and mod_jk.
On 06/19/2006 06:21 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
2006/6/19, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 06/19/2006 06:21 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
Rainer Jung wrote:
Hi,
sorry for breaking the mail threading, but I read this list offline
before and just subscribed to it now.
I would like to release mod_jk 1.2.16 soon, but as soon as that release
looks good, I would be willing to help syncing features between
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a great idea Henri ;)
Actually its a great way to
2006/6/19, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a great
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for HTTP...
Something like that was
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for HTTP...
A pluggable balancing
On 06/19/2006 10:37 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache
Rainer Jung wrote:
A pluggable balancing strategy sounds nice. What I'm not sure about, if
the size of problem is big enough to justify the work.
A lot of it already exists already. That was my whole intent
on the move to LB providers in proxy, and making such things
as finding the best
Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+1. Just one thought: I think it would be useful to have this 'health check'
approach somewhat generic so that we can implement the call to it inside
mod_proxy
and its connection pooling itself (e.g. with providers supplied by schema
handlers / modules).
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If this maps what's currently been done in mod_jk, than
a big +1. It's been on my todo but have simply not
had the cycles to do.
That is exactly the thing that I'm planing to do.
During last year there was a lots of good stuff
added to the
On 06/19/2006 10:23 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/19/2006 10:37 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk /
Committed to trunk.
-wsv
On Jun 14, 2006, at 12:27 AM, olivier Thereaux wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006, at 02:21, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
This looks fine, but can you add a patch to the docs? The
feature isn't useful if nobody knows it's there.
Sure. The patch is attached in
Important point in load balancing will be to collect CPU load (job
load) from the remote.
We often make the mistake to split requests between servers as if it
cost the same CPU power (or cpu load) for each of them, but in Java /
J2EE some requests could be more CPU/IO/DB consuming than others.
30 matches
Mail list logo
