Thanks for the fix btw
-Tony
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:mt...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:39 AM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: jk 1.2.36 throwing 503/sendfull/cping errors
On 05/29/2012 07:28 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Trunk works.
Cool
, May 27, 2012 10:27 PM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: jk 1.2.36 throwing 503/sendfull/cping errors
On 05/27/2012 05:27 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Yeah, I can do that, thanks much.
Cool.
In between can you check the code from the trunk?
Regards
--
^TM
, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: jk 1.2.36 throwing 503/sendfull/cping errors
Bug 53321
Checking out the trunk now.
-Tony
---
Manager, IT Operations
Format Dynamics, Inc.
P: 303-228-7327
F: 303-228-7305
abia...@formatdynamics.com
http
On 05/29/2012 07:28 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Trunk works.
Cool.
That confirms my findings.
We have release candidate at
http://people.apache.org/~mturk/tomcat-connectors/jk-1.2.37/
Hope its gonna be voted by the end of this week.
Regards
--
^TM
Yeah, I can do that, thanks much.
-Tony
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:mt...@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 2:35 AM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: jk 1.2.36 throwing 503/sendfull/cping errors
On 05/25/2012 08:11 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
GOOD
On 05/27/2012 05:27 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Yeah, I can do that, thanks much.
Cool.
In between can you check the code from the trunk?
Regards
--
^TM
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For
On 05/25/2012 08:11 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
GOOD loadbalancer (loadbalancer,app-03)
BAD loadbalancer (app-03,loadbalancer)
Could you open BZ entry for that?
Although it works in most cases, it's an error and should be fixed.
The point is that we can have both lb and standard workers with
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just changed between .35 and
.36
OK, but if you follow the recommended configuration
by making sure that workers which are
On 05/25/2012 11:28 AM, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Mladen Turkmt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just changed between .35 and
.36
OK, but if you follow the recommended
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/25/2012 11:28 AM, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Mladen Turkmt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just changed between .35
and
.36
OK, but if you follow the recommended configuration
by making sure that workers which are members of lb are not
listed inside worker.list, does it works?
If
I'm sure that once we had 'must not be in worker.list',
but someone changed that to 'should' inside
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/workers.html
(see balance_workers directive)
Probably needs to be changed back, or a strong warning added.
And that's ok, if I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony,
On 5/25/12 12:07 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
If I take the worker out of the worker list, then the loadbalancer
works. But then accessing the worker by itself it doesn't. It seems
to be based on the worker.list ordering
Here's the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony,
On 5/25/12 12:07 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
worker.list=jkstatus,app-03,loadbalancer loadbalancer: does NOT
work (503) app-03: works
worker.list=jkstatus,loadbalancer,app-03 loadbalancer: works
app-03: does NOT work (503)
What if you remove the jkstatus worker?
worker.list=app-03,loadbalancer
app-03: works
loadbalancer: does NOT work (503)
worker.list=loadbalancer,app-03
app-03: does NOT work (503)
loadbalancer: works
What if you put jkstatus at the end of the list?
: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:40 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: jk 1.2.36 throwing 503/sendfull/cping errors
What if you remove the jkstatus worker?
worker.list=app-03,loadbalancer
app-03: works
loadbalancer: does NOT work (503)
worker.list=loadbalancer,app-03
app-03: does NOT work
1.2.32 and 1.2.35 work fine.
[Wed May 23 15:56:32 2012] [32504:1138178368] [debug]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (609): trying to connect socket 22 to
0.0.0.0:0
Connecting to 0.0.0.0:0 ?
Yeah, I balked at that too.
[Wed May 23 15:56:32 2012] [32504:1138178368] [debug]
Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Please point out the workers.properties config line from my OP that's
incorrect. I didn't change configs at all from 1.2.32-1.2.35-1.2.36.
How could the config all of a sudden be incorrect with 1.2.36? The
changelog doesn't mention anything about deprecated or changed
You have the worker app-03 referenced both as a worker in its own
right,
and as a balanced
worker. Isn't this a bit strange ?
Normally, if it is accessed via the balancer, you do not list it in
workers.list.
I have it in the list because sometimes I reference a specific worker in
the
On 05/24/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why this behavior just changed between .35 and
.36
OK, but if you follow the recommended configuration
by making sure that workers which are members of lb are not
listed inside worker.list, does it works?
Regards
--
Centos 5.8, x86_64, apache 2.2.22, java 1.6.0_32, tomcat 7.0.27, apr
1.4.6 (also happens on another machine with apache 2.2.21 and java
1.6.0_29, rest of the versions are the same)
FWIW I also tried the following combos with the same effects:
tomcat 7.0.25/jni 1.1.22/apr 1.4.5
tomcat
On 05/24/2012 12:12 AM, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
Centos 5.8, x86_64, apache 2.2.22, java 1.6.0_32, tomcat 7.0.27, apr
1.4.6 (also happens on another machine with apache 2.2.21 and java
1.6.0_29, rest of the versions are the same)
Connecting apache to tomcat ajp, same machine.
Once I upgraded to
22 matches
Mail list logo
