There have been threads about failover/hotstandby being differently in mod_jk / 
mod_proxy_balancer & mod_proxy_ajp:
Status=d was not working in the same way like in mod_jk (worker with status=d 
are not used when the other worker of the balancer fails)

Ruediger's last words as far as I know (Feb 28, 2006) concerning this were (see

>I hope (and hoped) to get some feedback by other developers on this issue to 
>clarify the definition of 'disabled'. 
>Once this is done we can go into the details about how to implement this. 

I assume the status=d behavior still is a difference between mod_jk and 
mod_proxy_balacer / _ajp ...?


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ruediger Pluem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: 28.05.2006 23:00
Betreff: Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

On 05/28/2006 03:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
>> On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> >
>> > Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp +
>> > mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is
>> > the natural solution for anybody on Apache >= 2.2?
>> Currently mod_proxy_balancer lacks the domain feature of mod_jk, but I do
>> not know if this is regarded as fundamental piece.

Other things I noticed that are different:

1. mod_jk's recycle_timeout and cache_timeout are not exactly matched by 
   smax and ttl. But from my current personal point of view this does not 

2. mod_proxy_ajp does miss mod_jk's secret options. Again not critical from my 
point of view.

3. Currently connections are not checked if they are healthy *before* a request 
is send
   (something like mod_jk's connect_timeout, prepost_timeout). I think this 
would be nice to have,
   but I guess it is not easy to do this in a protocol independent way. So this 
might be only
   subject to implementation in mod_proxy_ajp.

4. There is no match for mod_jk's recovery_options currently. Furthermore I 
think some research
   needs to be done about mod_proxy's current behaviour in this situation. I 
guess this is important
   to prevent things being twice in your basket :-).

>> > Isn't pass-through of client SSL connection information another
>> > problem with mod_proxy?  (servlets can't access cipher or client
>> > certificate)
>> AFAIK not with mod_proxy_ajp. It seems to pass all these information
>> to Tomcat.
> oops, I meant "... problem with using generic HTTP support with
> mod_proxy -- mod_proxy_http"; I agree, the functional problem doesn't

I do not know if there is any standard in passing such information to the 
via HTTP, but I think you can pick up all SSL information that is available as 
variables and add them as request headers to the backend request via 
Is this a sufficient solution for the problem?

Regarding mod_proxy_http the following TODO's come up to my mind:

1. Currently we cannot handle keepalive connections to SSL backends.
2. There are some problems if the backend closes a keepalive connection by 
   due to a timeout. See also:[EMAIL 

  and PR3770 (



Dieses Dokument ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten 
bestimmt. Falls Sie diese E-Mail versehentlich bekommen haben, informieren Sie 
uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie diese Nachricht von Ihrem Computer. 
Jegliche Art von Reproduktion, Verbreitung, Vervielfaeltigung, Modifikation, 
Verteilung und/oder Publikation dieser E-Mail Nachricht ist untersagt. 
Die in dieser E-Mail enthaltenen Angaben und Erklaerungen sind unverbindlich. 
Haftungsansprueche des Empfaengers jeglicher Art werden ausgeschlossen. Die GZS 
schliesst ausser fuer den Fall von Vorsatz oder grober Fahrlaessigkeit die 
Haftung fuer jeglichen Verlust oder Schaeden durch virenbefallene Software oder 
E-Mails aus.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
named individual. If you are not the named addressee, you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this message in error and delete 
this e-message from your system.
No reliance may be placed on this message without written confirmation of its 
contents from an authorized representative. GZS accepts no liability for loss 
or damage caused by software viruses except in case of gross negligence or 
willful behaviour.

Reply via email to