Mike, local_worker_only=1 was wrong to put in the posting, it should have been 0 for the example.
Here's what we do: local_worker=1 indicates that it's running on the same box as apache. local_worker=0 indicates it's running elsewhere. local_worker_only=1 says only send new requests (e.g. no jsessionid cookie/url) to workers with local_worker=1. local_worker_only=0 says new requests to any server. How it helps is that when you need to do maintenance on ww2, set local_worker_only=1 on ww1 and do a graceful restart on apache. New requests to ww1 will all go to the ww1 Tomcat instance. If a requests comes to apache on ww1 with a ww2 jsessionid, it will still route the request to the correct Tomcat instance. Eventually the sessions on ww2 all die off and you can cleanly bring down the instance without killing off your users. You obviously need some other mechanism to stop HTTP requests from being directed to apache on ww2. Hope this helps, John On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 10:05, Mike Lindsey wrote: > I got it working, although your local worker statements confuse me. Are > you -not- load balancing? What the hell does local_worker_only do, if > it's not the obvious? > > John Moore wrote: > > * workers.properties > > worker.list=lbcon > > # ws1 > > [...] > > worker.ws1.local_worker=1 > > # ws2 > > [...] > > worker.ws2.local_worker=0 > > # > > [...] > > worker.lbcon.local_worker_only=1 > > # > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
