Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
On Feb 8, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Daniel López wrote: > Hi, > > Scott Ferguson escribió: >> On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Daniel Lopez wrote: >> >>> Would then be the recommended way to work to set all watchdog >>> ports on >>> all resin.conf files to be the same one? I'm thinking that might be >>> causing some of the issues as "side effect". >> >> It currently defaults to use the same one. I'm not sure I >> understand. > > Ummm my bad, the port I'm configuring different for each instance is > the > "server port": > > I confused the concepts. That is probably the port used by the > watchdog > process to contact this server instance, so having it different on > each > instance is the right way to go. That's the cluster port for the Resin server. It's used for load- balancing, distributed sessions, distributed management, etc. The watchdog doesn't actually use that port at all. > > I understand now, thanks to Bill Au's reminder, that in order to > change > the watchdog port, there's another setting. > > However, that would probably mean 2 JMV instances per "server", right? Unfortunately, yes. > One for the watchdog process and another for the app. server itself. > That would probably be too much overhead, as having many perl > processes > was a not a problem before, but JVM processes are not that light :). I should take a look to see if we can reduce the size of that process. The watchdog itself isn't doing much (which is the whole point of a watchdog process.) > So I'll wait for the issues to be dealt with, and then stay with one > watchdog process and several instances. -- Scott > > > Thanks all for your help, > D. > > > ___ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
Hi, Scott Ferguson escribió: > On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Daniel Lopez wrote: > >> Would then be the recommended way to work to set all watchdog ports on >> all resin.conf files to be the same one? I'm thinking that might be >> causing some of the issues as "side effect". > > It currently defaults to use the same one. I'm not sure I understand. Ummm my bad, the port I'm configuring different for each instance is the "server port": I confused the concepts. That is probably the port used by the watchdog process to contact this server instance, so having it different on each instance is the right way to go. I understand now, thanks to Bill Au's reminder, that in order to change the watchdog port, there's another setting. However, that would probably mean 2 JMV instances per "server", right? One for the watchdog process and another for the app. server itself. That would probably be too much overhead, as having many perl processes was a not a problem before, but JVM processes are not that light :). So I'll wait for the issues to be dealt with, and then stay with one watchdog process and several instances. Thanks all for your help, D. ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
You could use a different watchdog-port for each of your instance: http://www.caucho.com/resin/doc/server-tags.xtp#watchdog-port Bill On Feb 7, 2008 12:27 PM, Daniel Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would then be the recommended way to work to set all watchdog ports on > all resin.conf files to be the same one? I'm thinking that might be > causing some of the issues as "side effect". > > I understand the reason to use a well-known port, but sometimes the > instances stop responding due to some application misbehaving (in our > case, usually a DB breaks connections the wrong way and ends up > blocking the JVM) and that's the time to kill the process manually. We > have some scripts to check the status of the OS processes as sometimes > the applications themselves, as bad patients, are not reliable on > answering about their status :). Having an option to hard-kill > instances have been proven very useful through the years, with this or > any long lived processes. It's not an issue specific to Resin or any > other server. > > My only issue was the watchdog process reporting instances to be up > when they were not, as this woud mean it would not startup the new > instance. So thanks for creating the bug reports, I'll keep an eyem on > them to upgrade again. > > S! > D. > > > >> So my question would be... is there any configuration setting I can > >> use > >> with 3.1 to have several instances totally independent, so I can > >> start/stop/kill one of them without affecting the rest? Unfortunately, > >> sharing ONE resin.conf file is not an option and using ONE instance is > >> not an option as well. > > > > That's the purpose of the watchdog-port. The start/stop program needs > > a well-known port so it can tell the instance to shut down. The old > > 3.0 method used pid files to handle the same situation. > > > > -- Scott > > > > > > > > ___ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest > ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Daniel Lopez wrote: > Would then be the recommended way to work to set all watchdog ports on > all resin.conf files to be the same one? I'm thinking that might be > causing some of the issues as "side effect". It currently defaults to use the same one. I'm not sure I understand. > I understand the reason to use a well-known port, but sometimes the > instances stop responding due to some application misbehaving (in our > case, usually a DB breaks connections the wrong way and ends up > blocking the JVM) and that's the time to kill the process manually. We > have some scripts to check the status of the OS processes as sometimes > the applications themselves, as bad patients, are not reliable on > answering about their status :). Having an option to hard-kill > instances have been proven very useful through the years, with this or > any long lived processes. It's not an issue specific to Resin or any > other server. I'm adding hard-kill as another bug report. > My only issue was the watchdog process reporting instances to be up > when they were not, as this woud mean it would not startup the new > instance. So thanks for creating the bug reports, I'll keep an eyem on > them to upgrade again. I'll check the logic on the keepalive. -- Scott > > > S! > D. > > >>> So my question would be... is there any configuration setting I can >>> use >>> with 3.1 to have several instances totally independent, so I can >>> start/stop/kill one of them without affecting the rest? >>> Unfortunately, >>> sharing ONE resin.conf file is not an option and using ONE >>> instance is >>> not an option as well. >> >> That's the purpose of the watchdog-port. The start/stop program >> needs >> a well-known port so it can tell the instance to shut down. The old >> 3.0 method used pid files to handle the same situation. >> >> -- Scott > > > > > > > > ___ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
Would then be the recommended way to work to set all watchdog ports on all resin.conf files to be the same one? I'm thinking that might be causing some of the issues as "side effect". I understand the reason to use a well-known port, but sometimes the instances stop responding due to some application misbehaving (in our case, usually a DB breaks connections the wrong way and ends up blocking the JVM) and that's the time to kill the process manually. We have some scripts to check the status of the OS processes as sometimes the applications themselves, as bad patients, are not reliable on answering about their status :). Having an option to hard-kill instances have been proven very useful through the years, with this or any long lived processes. It's not an issue specific to Resin or any other server. My only issue was the watchdog process reporting instances to be up when they were not, as this woud mean it would not startup the new instance. So thanks for creating the bug reports, I'll keep an eyem on them to upgrade again. S! D. >> So my question would be... is there any configuration setting I can >> use >> with 3.1 to have several instances totally independent, so I can >> start/stop/kill one of them without affecting the rest? Unfortunately, >> sharing ONE resin.conf file is not an option and using ONE instance is >> not an option as well. > > That's the purpose of the watchdog-port. The start/stop program needs > a well-known port so it can tell the instance to shut down. The old > 3.0 method used pid files to handle the same situation. > > -- Scott ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
Re: [Resin-interest] Resin 3.1 independent instances
On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Daniel López wrote: > Hi all, > > Ever since I migrated from Resin 3.0 to 3.1 and watchdog process, I'm > having different issues, that might be caused by my setup, but they > are > not consistent, hence my question here. > > I have 6 different Resin instances in my app. server, that I use to > distribute the different applications so maintenance in an instance > does > not "bother" the applications in another instance. Up to 3.0, that > meant > basically having different resin.conf files and pointing the startup > script to the appropriate file, so far so good. > > However, since the upgrade to 3.1, it seems that when you start up the > first instance, one watchdog process is created and then "handles" all > the different instances. If you start a different instance, even if > you > use a different port for the watchdog process, it "connects" to the > already created process and is now being handled by THE ONE. > It would not be a real problem if it worked fine, but sometimes I get > messages when trying to stop/start an instance independently, that the > instance is "already running", even if it is not as the port is not > responding and the process can be confirmed being killed by the > console. > Sometimes stopping an instance means killing its process, as they > sometimes do not want to die on their own, but this used to work fine > until 3.0. I've filed two bugs on this: http://bugs.caucho.com/view.php?id=2410 and http://bugs.caucho.com/view.php?id=2409 > The only solution in those cases seems to be killing all instances AND > the watchdog process and start them all over again, which defeats the > whole purpose of having separate instances. > > > So my question would be... is there any configuration setting I can > use > with 3.1 to have several instances totally independent, so I can > start/stop/kill one of them without affecting the rest? Unfortunately, > sharing ONE resin.conf file is not an option and using ONE instance is > not an option as well. That's the purpose of the watchdog-port. The start/stop program needs a well-known port so it can tell the instance to shut down. The old 3.0 method used pid files to handle the same situation. -- Scott > > > For the moment, I'll "backgrade" all the instances to 3.0.X as the > situation has become quite a pain. > > Thanks for any insight! > D. > > > ___ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest ___ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
