Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
For the rest it's simply too much to cope in a single email ;)
I put the force recovery fix and the else suggestion in a patch at:
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/mod_jk-dev/patches/local_states.patch
I've added 'in_error' for ajp
On 06.03.2009 09:22, Mladen Turk wrote:
BZ 46808 is valid but it brings us back where we were before.
It solves (well doesn't actually) one thing,
but breaks the sticky sessions.
Unless the patch reliably detects the cause of failure
I'm -1 for committing that. The problem is that returned
codes
Huge one Rainer ;)
Rainer Jung wrote:
We have three busy counters:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
In status worker we use only a) and c). In lb we use a) and b). Your
comment to BZ 46808 seems to indicate, that using c) instead ob b) in lb
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
Huge one Rainer ;)
I know, but I went through it in depth.
Rainer Jung wrote:
We have three busy counters:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
In status worker we use only a) and c). In lb we use a) and b).
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
Huge one Rainer ;)
I know, but I went through it in depth.
Rainer Jung wrote:
We have three busy counters:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
In status worker we use only a) and c). In
On 06.03.2009 14:19, Mladen Turk wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
Huge one Rainer ;)
I know, but I went through it in depth.
Rainer Jung wrote:
We have three busy counters:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
In
On 06.03.2009 14:19, Mladen Turk wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
All this should never touch the global state
if there are live connections.
Let the live connection decides for itself when it gets serviced.
Anything else is just plain
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 14:19, Mladen Turk wrote:
JkMount /foo aw
JkMount /bar aw
Now, if /bar is slow and gets timeout it would mean that
/foo will be banned as well (although it might work perfectly)
But I see your point. Since configured it should be banned
immediately. However
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
For the rest it's simply too much to cope in a single email ;)
I put the force recovery fix and the else suggestion in a patch at:
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/mod_jk-dev/patches/local_states.patch
Everything apart from Hunk number 3 and the small
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
For the rest it's simply too much to cope in a single email ;)
I put the force recovery fix and the else suggestion in a patch at:
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/mod_jk-dev/patches/local_states.patch
Everything apart from Hunk
10 matches
Mail list logo
