("");
Perhaps setBind(); should check the given ip? However, I have fixed my
code to not allow this.
Cheers
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Mike Wannamaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 21, 2008 2:26 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: cluster configuration
Hi Filip
1. We
(ex); // todo, exception
handling?
}
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 19, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: cluster configuration
just to make sure
1. you are using 6.0.18
and
2. the IP you
ull;
throw new RuntimeException(ex); // todo, exception
handling?
}
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 19, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: cluster configuration
just to make sure
1. you
just to make sure
1. you are using 6.0.18
and
2. the IP you are trying to bind to is valid
and
3. could you be using linux?
this is the code that is telling you about the failure
186 : fhanik 586228 if (mcastBindAddress != null) {
187 : try {
188 : l
Instead of puting 127.0.0.1 in your conf file (server.xml) put the "real" ip
adress of your server.
Restart the server and look at catalina.out.
Regards.
2008/11/19 Mike Wannamaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm having an issue with clustering in tomcat and tribes.
>
> I get this output, I'm not sur
I'm having an issue with clustering in tomcat and tribes.
I get this output, I'm not sure why Tribes can't bind to the multicast
address? It then binds to localhost which doesn't allow machines to see
each other.
Any help is appreciated.
19-Nov-2008 3:30:23 PM org.apache.catalina.tribes.transpo
We run a cluster of Tomcat servers with Apache as a front end load balancer
using mod_jk configured for sticky sessions. Our primary application
provides users with access to their financial accounts. Fast response times
are as important as session replication.
We are starting to have problems
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:03 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> I've tested it, and it seems to work fine.
> Here is what you are probably missing
>
> Machine A
>
>
>
> Machine B
>
>
Thank you, it does work now.
Ed
---
I've tested it, and it seems to work fine.
Here is what you are probably missing
Machine A
Machine B
As you can see, the ports have to match up. In your config, it does add
the member correctly, but then the TcpFailureDetector will verify the
members existence, and if there is no me
I will look into this for you
Filip
Gmail User wrote:
I am trying to configure a cluster with static members, but so far no
luck. Am I missing something or is it not meant to be tested with both
members on localhost?
Both instances create their own sessions and no session propagation is
recorde
I am trying to configure a cluster with static members, but so far no
luck. Am I missing something or is it not meant to be tested with both
members on localhost?
Both instances create their own sessions and no session propagation is
recorded in the logs. The log also shows that there are no activ
I am trying to configure a cluster with static members, but so far no
luck. Am I missing something or is it not meant to be tested with both
members on localhost?
Both instances create their own sessions and no session propagation is
recorded in the logs. The log also shows that there are no activ
Aren't you missing the mcastBindAddr property? We're just going
through the test setup for clustering with 5.5.15 and it's working
pretty well, here's a snippet from our config:
jvmRoute="worker2">
distributable="true" >
className="org.
I am unable to get a 2 node cluster to work. I am using 5.5.15, as I
saw in an email that prior versions are broken.
when i start node A i see the following written to the log:
1064 INFO [main] - Manager [localhost/cluster]: skipping state
transfer. No members active in cluster group.
I expect
14 matches
Mail list logo
