Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Thank you, Dave. Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? Yes, they do. Then that means I cannot have two AJP connectors on each Tomcat. Proposed setup is, then: Worker names are "t1" and "t2" Load balancer name is "t": t --> t1, t2 t1 --> tomcat 1 port X (jvmRoute="t1") t2 --> tomcat 2 port X (jvmRoute="t2") On Apache I have: ... JkMount /myapp/* t #was "a" ... JkMount /myapp/* t #was "b" Or, if we remove the hassle of load balancing, I can just "JkMount /myapp/* t1", which is what I initially had (several months ago). But then... How do I get request.isSecure() and request.getScheme() working properly? I.e. How can I detect whether the user is coming in through HTTP or HTTPS? They ALWAYS return "false" and "http" respectively, regardless of what protocol the user used. Previously, I did it by adding secure="true" scheme="https" to one connector on each Tomcat. Now I cannot, as I only have one connector!! Thank you for any further guidance. Antonio Fiol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Hi, You can try out these step-by-step instructions: http://www.yorku.ca/dkha/tomcat/docs/apache-tomcat-modjk.htm Regards, Daniel On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Antonio Fiol Bonnín wrote: > Hello, > > I have tried to configure mod_jk as a load balancer WITH sticky sessions. > > I get the load balancing to work perfectly, but NOT the sticky sessions. > > This is what I tried: > > I set up 4 "ajp13" workers and 2 "lb" workers. > > Worker names are "t1_a", "t1_b", "t2_a" and "t2_b". > Load balancer names are "a" and "b", and they point to: > "a" --> "t1_a", "t2_a" > "b" --> "t1_b", "t2_b" > > t1_a --> tomcat 1 port X > t1_b --> tomcat 1 port Y > t2_a --> tomcat 2 port X > t2_b --> tomcat 2 port Y > > On Tomcat 1, jvmRoute is "t1". > On Tomcat 2, jvmRoute is "t2". (So, jvmRoutes are set-up). > > Am I missing something very obvious? > > Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that > strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... > > Thank you for any tip. > > Yours, > > > Antonio Fiol > > > P.S.: I am using two connectors on each Tomcat because one is configured > with scheme="http" secure="false", and the other is scheme="https" > secure="true". Our app relies upon that. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
On Wed, February 4, 2004 1at 1:31 am, Antonio Fiol Bonnín wrote: > Am I missing something very obvious? > > Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that > strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... Yes, they do. -Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mod_jk as a load balancer - Am I missing something obvious?
Hello, I have tried to configure mod_jk as a load balancer WITH sticky sessions. I get the load balancing to work perfectly, but NOT the sticky sessions. This is what I tried: I set up 4 "ajp13" workers and 2 "lb" workers. Worker names are "t1_a", "t1_b", "t2_a" and "t2_b". Load balancer names are "a" and "b", and they point to: "a" --> "t1_a", "t2_a" "b" --> "t1_b", "t2_b" t1_a --> tomcat 1 port X t1_b --> tomcat 1 port Y t2_a --> tomcat 2 port X t2_b --> tomcat 2 port Y On Tomcat 1, jvmRoute is "t1". On Tomcat 2, jvmRoute is "t2". (So, jvmRoutes are set-up). Am I missing something very obvious? Do jvmRoutes need to have the same name as the workers? I find that strange, but I can't come up with something more logical... Thank you for any tip. Yours, Antonio Fiol P.S.: I am using two connectors on each Tomcat because one is configured with scheme="http" secure="false", and the other is scheme="https" secure="true". Our app relies upon that. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
