Re: Building Question

[Henri Gomez]

CLR ?


On Apr 10, 2005 3:33 AM, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > I'm thinking of starting on implementing CLRs for Tomcat 5.5.  However,
> > it's
> > a PITA for < 1.5.  I wanted to check that the binary builds for TC 5.5 are
> > being built with JDK 1.5, or, I'm probably wasting my time (not many
> > people
> > use the source distro :).
> 
> I've been building with 1.4, using the build as a final check that we have
> no 1.5-only code.
> 
> Yoav Shapira
> System Design and Management Fellow
> MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
> Cambridge, MA USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Henri Gomez]

I voted it stable but I'm not using clustering support :(

On Apr 9, 2005 8:54 PM, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>>Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
> >>>the 5.5.10 codebase.
> >>>I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug
> >>>report..
> >>
> >>I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he
> >>gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release
> >>manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav !
> >
> > Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached
> > to that item, please let us know.  At that time I'll send out the vote
> > results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a
> > link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and
> > that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable.
> 
> Good.
> 
> The vote still does count though: since it is not a regression nor a
> security issue, if there are three committers who vote stable, then it's
> stable. Of course, it won't happen, as nobody ever cares about voting ;)
> 
> Rémy
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Building Question

[Yoav Shapira]

Hi,

> I'm thinking of starting on implementing CLRs for Tomcat 5.5.  However,
> it's
> a PITA for < 1.5.  I wanted to check that the binary builds for TC 5.5 are
> being built with JDK 1.5, or, I'm probably wasting my time (not many
> people
> use the source distro :).

I've been building with 1.4, using the build as a final check that we have
no 1.5-only code.

Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
Cambridge, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Building Question

[Bill Barker]

I'm thinking of starting on implementing CLRs for Tomcat 5.5.  However, it's 
a PITA for < 1.5.  I wanted to check that the binary builds for TC 5.5 are 
being built with JDK 1.5, or, I'm probably wasting my time (not many people 
use the source distro :). 


This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the 
intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and 
CONFIDENTIAL.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or 
distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of 
this message and any attachments.
In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through 
the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, 
such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification 
numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

HELLO

[pier]

Here are your banks documents.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-catalina/webapps/docs changelog.xml

[billbarker]

billbarker2005/04/09 12:30:37

  Modified:webapps/docs changelog.xml
  Log:
  Note SSL change, fix typo.
  
  Revision  ChangesPath
  1.284 +9 -1  jakarta-tomcat-catalina/webapps/docs/changelog.xml
  
  Index: changelog.xml
  ===
  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-catalina/webapps/docs/changelog.xml,v
  retrieving revision 1.283
  retrieving revision 1.284
  diff -u -r1.283 -r1.284
  --- changelog.xml 4 Apr 2005 20:57:02 -   1.283
  +++ changelog.xml 9 Apr 2005 19:30:37 -   1.284
  @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@
   to it would leak a minimal amount of memory) (remm)
 
 
  -Read patch causing Session.getId to throw an ISE, and make all 
internal components
  +Re-aad patch causing Session.getId to throw an ISE, and make all 
internal components
   use a safe getIdInternal method (remm)
 
 
  @@ -82,6 +82,14 @@
   
 
 
  +   
  + 
  +  
  +Add support for using "Smart Cards" as trust/keyStore. (billbarker)
  +  
  + 
  +  
  +
 
   
 
  
  
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Remy Maucherat]

Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
the 5.5.10 codebase.
I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug
report..
I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he
gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release
manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav !
Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached
to that item, please let us know.  At that time I'll send out the vote
results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a
link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and
that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable.
Good.
The vote still does count though: since it is not a regression nor a 
security issue, if there are three committers who vote stable, then it's 
stable. Of course, it won't happen, as nobody ever cares about voting ;)

Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/xdocs changelog.xml

[glenn]

glenn   2005/04/09 08:44:58

  Modified:jk/native CHANGES.txt
   jk/xdocs changelog.xml
  Log:
  Document bug fixes
  
  Revision  ChangesPath
  1.26  +8 -1  jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/CHANGES.txt
  
  Index: CHANGES.txt
  ===
  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/CHANGES.txt,v
  retrieving revision 1.25
  retrieving revision 1.26
  diff -u -r1.25 -r1.26
  --- CHANGES.txt   30 Mar 2005 05:41:15 -  1.25
  +++ CHANGES.txt   9 Apr 2005 15:44:58 -   1.26
  @@ -1,9 +1,16 @@
   JAKARTA TOMCAT CONNECTORS (JK) CHANGELOG:   -*-text-*-
   Last modified at [$Date$]
   
  +Changes in JK 1.2.11
  +* BUG 34358: Fix the load balance worker load balance method. It was not 
being
  +  set from the worker.properties file
  +* BUG 34357: Fix a segfault in Apache 2 when using JKAutoAlias.
  +* Update tomcat_trend.pl for new error log string formatting.
  +
   Changes in JK 1.2.10
   * Do not mark the worker in error state if headers are larger then AJP13
 limit.
  +
   Changes in JK 1.2.9
   * lbfactor is now relationship between members, so worker.a.lbfactor=1 
and worker.b.lbfactor=1
 will give 50-50% load.
  
  
  
  1.21  +7 -0  jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/xdocs/changelog.xml
  
  Index: changelog.xml
  ===
  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/xdocs/changelog.xml,v
  retrieving revision 1.20
  retrieving revision 1.21
  diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
  --- changelog.xml 5 Apr 2005 06:32:55 -   1.20
  +++ changelog.xml 9 Apr 2005 15:44:58 -   1.21
  @@ -28,6 +28,13 @@
 
   Add --enable-prefork to the documentation (pero)
 
  +  
  +  34358: Fix the load balance worker load balance method.
  +  It was not being set from the worker.properties file
  +  
  +  
  +  34357: Fix a segfault in Apache 2 when using JKAutoAlias.
  +  
   
 
   
  
  
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/apache-2.0 mod_jk.c

[glenn]

glenn   2005/04/09 08:44:35

  Modified:jk/native/apache-2.0 mod_jk.c
  Log:
  BUG: 34357 Apache 2 JkAutoAlias segfault
  
  In some situations Apache 2 mod_jk could segfault
  when the JkAutoAlias directive is used.
  
  Added an additional null pointer test.
  
  Revision  ChangesPath
  1.135 +3 -2  jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/apache-2.0/mod_jk.c
  
  Index: mod_jk.c
  ===
  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/apache-2.0/mod_jk.c,v
  retrieving revision 1.134
  retrieving revision 1.135
  diff -u -r1.134 -r1.135
  --- mod_jk.c  26 Mar 2005 09:37:10 -  1.134
  +++ mod_jk.c  9 Apr 2005 15:44:35 -   1.135
  @@ -2482,7 +2482,8 @@
   /* Special case to make sure that apache can serve a directory
  listing if there are no matches for the DirectoryIndex and
  Tomcat webapps are mapped into apache using JkAutoAlias. */
  -if (r->main != NULL && (conf->alias_dir != NULL) &&
  +if (r->main != NULL && r->main->handler != NULL &&
  +(conf->alias_dir != NULL) &&
   !strcmp(r->main->handler, DIR_MAGIC_TYPE)) {
   
   /* Append the request uri to the JkAutoAlias directory and
  
  
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Yoav Shapira]

Hi,

> > Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
> > the 5.5.10 codebase.
> > I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug
> > report..
> 
> I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he
> gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release
> manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav !

Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached
to that item, please let us know.  At that time I'll send out the vote
results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a
link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and
that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable.

Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
Cambridge, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34357] - Seg Fault in Apache 2 mod_jk.c

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34357


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-04-09 17:42 ---
Bug fix applied and committed to CVS.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34358] - loadbalance.method=[T]raffic not enbaled

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34358


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED




-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34358] - loadbalance.method=[T]raffic not enbaled

[bugzilla]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34358


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-04-09 17:38 ---
Bug fixed in CVS.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/common jk_lb_worker.c

[glenn]

glenn   2005/04/09 08:29:14

  Modified:jk/native/common jk_lb_worker.c
  Log:
  BUG: 34358 loadbalance.method=[T]raffic not enbaled
  
  The lbworker->lbmethod was not being intialized from the
  worker.properties config.
  
  Fixed bug based on mladen's recommendation.
  
  Revision  ChangesPath
  1.75  +3 -1  jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/common/jk_lb_worker.c
  
  Index: jk_lb_worker.c
  ===
  RCS file: 
/home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/native/common/jk_lb_worker.c,v
  retrieving revision 1.74
  retrieving revision 1.75
  diff -u -r1.74 -r1.75
  --- jk_lb_worker.c26 Mar 2005 09:28:56 -  1.74
  +++ jk_lb_worker.c9 Apr 2005 15:29:14 -   1.75
  @@ -821,6 +821,8 @@
   if (p->s->recover_wait_time < WAIT_BEFORE_RECOVER)
   p->s->recover_wait_time = WAIT_BEFORE_RECOVER;
   
  +p->lbmethod = jk_get_lb_method(props, p->s->name);
  +
   JK_INIT_CS(&(p->cs), i);
   if (i == JK_FALSE) {
   jk_log(log, JK_LOG_ERROR,
  
  
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/tools/reports tomcat_trend.pl

[glenn]

glenn   2005/04/09 08:24:44

  Modified:jk/tools/reports tomcat_trend.pl
  Log:
  Update to support changes to error logging string format
  
  Revision  ChangesPath
  1.10  +4 -4  
jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/tools/reports/tomcat_trend.pl
  
  Index: tomcat_trend.pl
  ===
  RCS file: 
/home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/tools/reports/tomcat_trend.pl,v
  retrieving revision 1.9
  retrieving revision 1.10
  diff -u -r1.9 -r1.10
  --- tomcat_trend.pl   7 Feb 2005 14:49:55 -   1.9
  +++ tomcat_trend.pl   9 Apr 2005 15:24:44 -   1.10
  @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@
# Stop processing if logtime is today
last if( $logtime >= $curdate );
   
  - if( $line =~ /\d\)\]: / ) {
  + if( $line =~ /\d\)\]{0,1}: / ) {
   # Handle a mod_jk error
   if( $line =~ /(jk_tcp_socket_recvfull failed|ERROR: Receiving 
from tomcat failed)/ ) {
  $Global{tomcat_full}++;
  
  
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Remy Maucherat]

Peter Rossbach wrote:
I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering.
:(
So it's safe to assume all 5.5 builds have some kind of issues with the 
clustering then, probably due to lack of actual production testing.

 >>Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible 
(meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If 
so, I think we >>need to forget about clustering stability for now, and 
mention that it is experimental in this build.

Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review 
the 5.5.10 codebase.
I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug 
report..
I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he 
gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release 
manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav !

Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Peter Rossbach]

I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering.
>>Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible 
(meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If 
so, I think we >>need to forget about clustering stability for now, and 
mention that it is experimental in this build.

Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review 
the 5.5.10 codebase.
I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug 
report..

Peter
Remy Maucherat schrieb:
Peter Rossbach wrote:
My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we 
package a
separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta.

Given the state of HEAD, and given some the 5.5.7 issues, I would like 
5.5.9 to be stable. This means we would need a way to fix 5.5.9 
without new major patches (which may work well for your customer, but 
this is still very limited testing) ;)

Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning 
that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I 
think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and 
mention that it is experimental in this build.

Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Remy Maucherat]

Peter Rossbach wrote:
My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a
separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta.
Given the state of HEAD, and given some the 5.5.7 issues, I would like 
5.5.9 to be stable. This means we would need a way to fix 5.5.9 without 
new major patches (which may work well for your customer, but this is 
still very limited testing) ;)

Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning 
that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I 
think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and mention 
that it is experimental in this build.

Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Peter Rossbach]

Congratulation, too!
Peter

Yoav Shapira schrieb:
Hi,
 

The problem is that clustering only patches in HEAD may pick up
incompatible changes, like the Session.getId patch. We also shouldn't do
a new 5.5.10 tag based on HEAD, as it would pick up the risky stuff.
Maybe one solution would be to do a new 5.5.9 build, and reverting
clustering (aka, everything in the "cluster" folder) to the 5.5.8 tag.
Would that work out well enough ?
   

I think that's the best approach.  We can call it 5.5.9-beta when released,
and have a stability vote right afterwards.
I'll be incommunicado from the 14th through the 20th or so: I'm getting
married on the 17th ;)
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
Cambridge, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability

[Peter Rossbach]

Hey,
the problem is arround the keep a live handling code and the auto 
reconnect at SimpleTcpCluster.
   One thread can say: I drop the connection and open new one, then 
start transfer message and wait for ack.
   Other thread comes and see ups. the connection is not there. ( Arrg 
missing sychronized). I open a new socket and close the old current use 
socket.
   Under Suse Linux 9.1, the first thread wait for keepAlive timeout 
(60 sec). BAD!!!

   =>
  Asnyc mode the queue grow very fast.
  Sometimes all other nodes have the same problem and the complete 
cluster standing still. Nothing todo wait for ACK

  I am made very limited testing the effects at sync,pooled mode. I 
preferred the async modes.

I have merge my fix  at the 5.5.10 CVS Head Basis. Currently my customer 
start a weekend load test.
I also merge the changes at 5.5.9 Basis. Both version needs testing and 
documentation, but my time
and ressource are limited. Need help, setup clusters and start loading 
tests.

I start to open a bug report for better community discussion and add my 
fix pack for testing.
build-src
bin pack

I must review my changes and document my szenario.
Than Filip can start to review the changes and testing  the clustering.
Thanks for you help. :-)
My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a
separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta.
Peter
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists schrieb:
Hi Peter, what's up with the cluster code?
I will have some time to load test and debug any problems you might 
have, also, do you have problems on the synced-pooled setting, or on 
all connectors?

Filip

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]