When my work is done, Session Affinity will not be required in order to acheive load balancing. However, we should still want to use session affinity in our load balancing solution(s) for the simple reason that it will perform better.
However, the session affinity between Apache and Tomcat 3 locks a user (based on her JSESSIONID) to a single Tomcat instance. Once the distributed session management solution is in place, Apache should 'prefer' NOT 'force' tomcat instance routing. This gives us a real fail-over story. Administrators will be able to bring down Tomcat instances without blowing away 'logged in' users. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tomcat Users List (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:54 AM Subject: RE: Configuring Multiple Tomcat JVMs with Apache - Load Balancing | >there hasn't been done anything on that topic yet ? What's | >the status of | >loadbalacing, either mod_jk or mod_webapp ? | >Is that political due to if loadbalacing is working properly | >there won't be | >any reason to take (buy) anything else than TC ? | | State of the art is that today only mod_jk could | handle load-balancing and only when connected | to Tomcat 3.2.x or 3.3. | | Tomcat 4.0.x support ajp13 protocol, used in mod_jk | but still miss a subtil feature (jvmroute) to be | able to keep the route to the good JVM in | session mode (SessionAfinity). | | But the current refactory of ajp protocol, | under ajp14 in jakarta-tomcat-connectors, will | fix somedays thanks to Costin and Kevin works :))) | | -- | To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
