-Original Message-
From: sfwicket [mailto:li...@bgb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:08 PM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: Tomcat7 + WebSocket + mod_jk
So run a single instance of Tomcat on port 80 with no HAProxy or Apache and
hit it directly in production env sounds
Hi.
I'm using Atlassian Fisheye 2.7.15 (uses Jetty 6.1.26) under Ubuntu 12.04
with mod_jk 1:1.2.32-1 and Apache 2.2.22-1ubuntu1.
After I upgraded mod_jk from 1.2.31 to 1.2.32 Jetty isn't working anymore
throwing the exception below.
Any ideas why that is happening? What changed through
On 21.08.2012 10:34, Veit Guna wrote:
Hi.
I'm using Atlassian Fisheye 2.7.15 (uses Jetty 6.1.26) under Ubuntu 12.04
with mod_jk 1:1.2.32-1 and Apache 2.2.22-1ubuntu1.
After I upgraded mod_jk from 1.2.31 to 1.2.32 Jetty isn't working anymore
throwing the exception below.
Any ideas why
Well, what can I say - thank you :)!
Your tip worked like a charm.
Am 21.08.2012 16:22, schrieb Rainer Jung:
On 21.08.2012 10:34, Veit Guna wrote:
Hi.
I'm using Atlassian Fisheye 2.7.15 (uses Jetty 6.1.26) under Ubuntu
12.04
with mod_jk 1:1.2.32-1 and Apache 2.2.22-1ubuntu1.
After I
servers and I'm looking at using
mod_jk like this:
Apache httpd
mod_jk
workers.properties
workerA - serverA
workerB - serverB
uriworkermap.properties
/* = serverA
/path2/* = serverB
/path3/* = serverB
mod_jk.so is created and i copied it to /usr/local/apache2/modules.
i followed the steps from
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-3.3-doc/mod_jk-howto.html#s61
there they have written change directory to
TOMCAT_HOME/native/mod_jk/apache1.3
but i m afraid that theres no such directory.
and build
From: Aman Arora [mailto:aman.arora...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: is there anyway to check whether mod_jk is properly built or not?
i followed the steps from
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-3.3-doc/mod_jk-howto.html#s61
Why in the world would anyone be looking at doc for a version of Tomcat
Respected All,
i hope this question is relevant .
Thanks,
Aman Arora
On 05/28/2012 10:30 AM, Aman Arora wrote:
Respected All,
i hope this question is relevant .
Not really :)
Have you tried to build it and is mod_jk.so produced?
Hope you are not trying that on windows, cause it can be
tricky for someone that tries to build it for the first time.
Regards
Dear All,
Thanks for your suggestions and your valuable time...
next time i post questions,i ll take care of the proper things .
i ll try to work on your suggestions and then come back to you people .
Thanks
Aman Arora
On 10.05.2012 11:24, Agnieszka Allstar wrote:
Obviously this has sth to do with the fact that in A case the mod_jk.log
says the request is recoverable, whereas in B case it's unrecoverable but I
can't really tell what's the cause after looking at mod_jk src.
Just in case you are still
That's strange. It's working fine for many other people, on thousands of
websites.
Maybe it is your configuration that is not working ?
is not working !! is about the best subject that can be imagined, if your intention
was to not get any response at all. The only missing parts are
From: Aman Arora aman.arora...@gmail.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:25 PM
Subject: mod_jk not working !!
m trying to do a setup of tomcat clustering in which one tomcat is on port
8080 and other one is on 8081.
i have downloaded
anything else to build mod_jk for your
environment. Read the README.txt file in the root of the tarball and
follow the directions.
it buit mod_jk.so
That's good. Since I don't know what build-unix.sh does, I'm happy it
didn't delete your kernel.
which i have placed inside modules folder as
/usr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 5/25/12 12:26 PM, Mark Eggers wrote:
. . . just my three cents (since this is long)
More like twelve bucks: you should send this guy a bill for the
message you just put together for him.
- -chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
From: Mark Eggers [mailto:its_toas...@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: mod_jk not working !!
I'll try to give a few general directions.
much useful content snipped
Again, start simply.
1. Stock Apache HTTPD installation (and verify)
2. Stock Apache Tomcat installation (and verify)
3. mod_jk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/25/12 12:41 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Mark Eggers [mailto:its_toas...@yahoo.com] Subject: Re:
mod_jk not working !!
I'll try to give a few general directions.
much useful content snipped
Again, start simply.
1
From: Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
To: Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk not working !!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 5/25/12 12:41 PM, Caldarale
On 25 May 2012, at 19:21, Mark Eggers its_toas...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
To: Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk not working !!
-BEGIN PGP
m trying to do a setup of tomcat clustering in which one tomcat is on port
8080 and other one is on 8081.
i have downloaded the tomcat-connector in the modules folder of my apache.i
built it using build-unix.sh by downloading the script from net as it was
nt already there in the downloaded
Steffen from apache lounge asked me to forward this to tomcat mailing list
Chris
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steffen i...@apachelounge.com
Date: Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: mod_jk binary
Chris,
Made 1.2.36 Apache 2.4 Win32/Win64 available.
Maybe you can say
mailing list
Chris
-- Forwarded message -- From: Steffen
i...@apachelounge.com Date: Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: mod_jk binary
Chris,
Made 1.2.36 Apache 2.4 Win32/Win64 available. Maybe you can say it
on the Tomcat user list.
Steffen
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/10/12 6:36 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
Direct to apache http: Transfer rate: 21925.90
[Kbytes/sec] received
Through AJP: Transfer rate: 36732.95 [Kbytes/sec]
received
Direct to tomcat http: Transfer rate:
to this site or any other site.
There is nothing wrong with tomcat, mod_jk or httpd.
It's just your use case.
I'm not convinced that there isn't something odd going on but for now
I'll ignore it. I may have a stupid use case, but we have had reports
out in the field of what appear
On 10/05/2012 23:36, Andy Wang wrote:
So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s on the same VM I was able
to reproduce it on once I copied the VM to an adequate vmware server.
But I do see some neat numbers in case people care.
I ran with ab -5 directly against apache, against a url
got.
There is nothing wrong with tomcat, mod_jk or httpd.
It's just your use case.
Regards
--
^TM
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:36:02 -0500
From: aw...@ptc.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s
with attachments is multipart/related;
type=application/xop+xml (...).
I wonder if mod_jk can only failover the current request (with no
error to the client) if the request is small enough (or only a small
amount has already been transferred to the failing server).
This could be it I'll check
with, say, a different path or port number to get the
various setups (bare httpd, httpd+mod_jk, httpd+mod_proxy, etc.) and
then let it run all night. It will also produce some tables for you
that can then easily be graphed.
I also did bump up the ajpPacket size to 64K with no noticeable
change
I have solid numbers that I will e-mail in a follow up by itself so
it's not lossed in the shuffle.
Some answers to the comments inline.
Thanks,
Andy
Do you mean that Tomcat performance appears to be the same regardless
of version? That's both good and bad... I thought there were some
So I cannot reproduce the slow down to 4-5MB/s on the same VM I was able
to reproduce it on once I copied the VM to an adequate vmware server.
But I do see some neat numbers in case people care.
I ran with ab -5 directly against apache, against a url mapped to ajp as
well as direct to the
On 08/05/2012 22:13, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - sol-11--text-x86.iso.8 saved
[450799616
concurrencies against a series of URLs -- that allows you to set up
everything with, say, a different path or port number to get the
various setups (bare httpd, httpd+mod_jk, httpd+mod_proxy, etc.) and
then let it run all night. It will also produce some tables for you
that can then easily be graphed
could make sure if it is Tomcat, or the mod_jk/AJP link which is
the issue.
Also, still considering your setup, it should be possible to
configure things so that these file downloads are handled directly by
Apache httpd, since that seems to satisfy your expectations. mod_jk
JkMount/JkUnMount
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy,
On 5/7/12 6:38 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
This is Apache 2.2.22 and mod_jk 1.2.32 with tomcat 5.0.30 (yeah,
I know this is ancient. I'll try with something newer tomorrow).
Which connector are you using? If you have APR available, AJP should use
Which connector are you using? If you have APR available, AJP should use
the APR connector by default. Do you know if you are using APR/native?
If not, consider trying it, and use sendFile=true. I'm not sure if it
will improve anything because the real problem might be the actual
buffering
After playing with this a bit more (testing this time against tomcat 7.0.27)
the ajpPacketSize has zero effect on the speed.
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - “sol-11--text-x86.iso.8” saved
[450799616/450799616
From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - sol-11--text-x86.iso.8 saved
[450799616/450799616]
Downloading the same large file
Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Andy Wang [mailto:aw...@ptc.com]
Subject: Re: Slow downloads through mod_jk on Windows XP
Downloading a large file through mod_jk to tomcat looks like this:
2012-05-08 16:01:22 (15.0 MB/s) - sol-11--text-x86.iso.8 saved
[450799616/450799616
He did that previously, and the result seemed to be that Tomcat alone
was comparable to httpd alone, and both were better than httpd/mod_jk
+ Tomcat; which is indeed physically to be expected : more tubing,
less throughput (excepting quantum tunelling effects of course).
The question is more
Hi all,
We've had a number of cases of people reporting to us that file
downloads are slow when passed through tomcat and I've not been able to
reproduce the problem on Linux but finally was provided a windows XP VM
that was able to reproduce the problem.
This is Apache 2.2.22 and mod_jk
2.2.22 and mod_jk 1.2.32 with tomcat 5.0.30 (yeah, I know
this is ancient. I'll try with something newer tomorrow).
I have two URLs configured both with an identical iso file (roughly
450MB) in size.
When I go through the URL configured to run directly through Apache the
download speeds
to reproduce the problem.
This is Apache 2.2.22 and mod_jk 1.2.32 with tomcat 5.0.30 (yeah, I
know this is ancient. I'll try with something newer tomorrow).
I have two URLs configured both with an identical iso file (roughly
450MB) in size.
When I go through the URL configured to run directly
Hello,
I'm using httpd 2.2.22 with mod_jk 1.2.32 and 2 load balanced tomcat
workers (TC 6.0.35). I have a question about recovery in case when active
worker becomes abruptly inactive.
Here's my test scenario:
1. Web service client sends SOAP request to apache server. This client
sends requests
I am not sure that mod_jk mappings follow the principle of longest match
wins.
They follow a logic of their own whereby wildcard matches outrank
non-wildcard matches, so for example:
JkMount /*
JkUnmount /
doesn't operate to unmount the Tomcat root, not because it is shorter but
because
in both cases you should be sending
HTTP POST... the only difference should be larger Content-Length.
I wonder if mod_jk can only failover the current request (with no
error to the client) if the request is small enough (or only a small
amount has already been transferred to the failing server).
[Fri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Esmond,
On 4/30/12 8:06 AM, Esmond Pitt wrote:
I am not sure that mod_jk mappings follow the principle of
longest match
wins.
They follow a logic of their own whereby wildcard matches outrank
non-wildcard matches, so for example:
JkMount
tell us if a session id was valid or not... we had to
blindly choose one of the JSESSIONID cookies and send *that* to the
Tomcat back-end. I can see that this isn't making any sense and it was
kind of a cluster#$@*% so forget it.)
Does mod_jk offer any feature to solve this, or is my best bet
that requests differ in Content-Type. For simple soap
request is text/xml and the one with attachments is multipart/related;
type=application/xop+xml (...).
I wonder if mod_jk can only failover the current request (with no
error to the client) if the request is small enough (or only a small
amount has
I need to set up a configuration where a site's path space
gets distributed over two servers and I'm looking at using
mod_jk like this:
Apache httpd
mod_jk
workers.properties
workerA - serverA
workerB - serverB
uriworkermap.properties
/* = serverA
On 28.04.2012 16:52, Mike Wilson wrote:
I need to set up a configuration where a site's path space
gets distributed over two servers and I'm looking at using
mod_jk like this:
Apache httpd
mod_jk
workers.properties
workerA - serverA
workerB - serverB
Mike Wilson wrote:
I need to set up a configuration where a site's path space
gets distributed over two servers and I'm looking at using
mod_jk like this:
Apache httpd
mod_jk
workers.properties
workerA - serverA
workerB - serverB
uriworkermap.properties
On 04/24/2012 09:30 PM, chris derham wrote:
And we have a winner - 64 bit mod_jk now present on
http://www.apachelounge.com/download/win64/
Thanks for all your help, and apache lounge for doing the work
Wow, that was fast.
Regards
--
^TM
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/24/2012 09:30 PM, chris derham wrote:
And we have a winner - 64 bit mod_jk now present on
http://www.apachelounge.com/download/win64/
Thanks for all your help, and apache lounge for doing the work
Wow, that was fast.
I am grateful too for the above, but since you
Wow, that was fast.
Far better than commercial support IMO
I am grateful too for the above, but since you appear to have a good
connection, and for the sake of symmetry, should not one ask them also for
the 32-bit version ?
I sent one email, and he went for it. I don't really call that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ironclaw,
Let's take a step back.
On 4/23/12 10:19 AM, ironclaw hand wrote:
Thanks Christopher I will address the security issues if I am
actually able to get mod_jk to execute a jsp!
I tend to agree with André, here and his assertions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mladen,
On 4/25/12 8:56 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/24/2012 09:30 PM, chris derham wrote:
And we have a winner - 64 bit mod_jk now present on
http://www.apachelounge.com/download/win64/
Thanks for all your help, and apache lounge for doing
be best but I was just asked to
install current versions of apache, tomcat and mod_jk and get it all to work
and I was given some existing config files, as said I have never done this
before so initially I would actually like to get mod_jk working so that I can
actually see the java code getting
been asked to install new
versions of the software but I cannot even get this working with one apache and
localhost tomcat.
From: ironclawh...@hotmail.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: RE: Mod_jk returning source code of jsp files
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:40:08 +0100
Ok thanks
suggestion would be best but I was just asked to
install current versions of apache, tomcat and mod_jk and get it all to work
and I was given some existing config files, as said I have never done this
before so initially I would actually like to get mod_jk working so that I can
actually see
): missing uri map for
sfta.a.b.c:/sft/images/logo.gif
It looks like mod_jk is receiving from apache but it doesnt know what to do
with the request. Is this correct? I have been reading about this and people
have suggested in other forum posts to use:
JKMountCopy On - within the virtual host
]
jk_map_to_storage::mod_jk.c (3773): missing uri map for
sfta.a.b.c:/sft/images/logo.gif
It looks like mod_jk is receiving from apache but it doesnt know what to do with the request. Is this correct?
Yes. mod_jk is looking at the URI pattern, and it does not match any pattern in the table
which it has built
Exactly. Might be better to come from userland
+1
I have emailed the apache lounge contact email asking if they would
consider including a build of mod_jk - lets see what happens
Thanks
Chris
And we have a winner - 64 bit mod_jk now present on
http://www.apachelounge.com/download
executed it.
I have installed the following versions of software:
httpd 2.4.2
Tomcat connectors 1.2.35
Tomcat 7.0.27
Below are the mod_jk config (workers.properties and mod_jk.conf) files I am
currently trying to get working if there is anything else that is needed then I
can include this. My worker
not sure what
is happening but it looks like apache is just serving up all files so when
i acccess a jsp file I get the source as if tomcat never executed it.
I have installed the following versions of software:
httpd 2.4.2
Tomcat connectors 1.2.35
Tomcat 7.0.27
Below are the mod_jk config
+1000
Subject: Re: Mod_jk returning source code of jsp files
From: icici...@gmail.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Put this line
Include /etc/httpd/conf/mod_jk.conf
inside virtual host.
On Apr 23, 2012 9:12 PM, ironclaw hand ironclawh...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am attempting
/mod_jk.conf:
JkWorkersFile cannot occur within VirtualHost section
[FAILED]
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:36:35 +1000
Subject: Re: Mod_jk returning source code of jsp files
From: icici...@gmail.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Put
.
Is the example above what you meant?
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:10:55 +1000
Subject: RE: Mod_jk returning source code of jsp files
From: icici...@gmail.com
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Well you need to have JkMount command inside the virtual host so its up to
you how to do it.
On Apr 23, 2012 10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ironclaw,
On 4/23/12 9:18 AM, ironclaw hand wrote:
So are you saying I should do away with the mod_jk.conf
completely?
That depends upon what is in mod_jk.conf. Your mod_jk.conf looks like
a mix between global mod_jk directives (e.g. JkWorkersFile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mladen,
On 4/21/12 12:02 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/19/2012 06:33 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
I think it's reasonable for us to add x86-64 builds for
mod_jk+httpd.
The problem is that there are no more 'official' httpd binaries.
Aah, I
Thanks Christopher I will address the security issues if I am actually able to
get mod_jk to execute a jsp!
I have now removed everything from mod_jk.conf except for the global directives
and I now have my httpd.conf looking like:
#
# JK for connections to Tomcat
#
LoadModule jk_module
ironclaw hand wrote:
Thanks Christopher I will address the security issues if I am actually able to
get mod_jk to execute a jsp!
No. You should do things right first, in a secure way. And then, when it works, you can
start optimising carefully and step by step, and try not to introduce
maintainer just get bored, so the
suggested use is to use apachelaunge's binaries.
At the end we could try to convince those guys to produce mod_jk
binaries as well.
Yeah, it would seem reasonable to suggest that to them. Maybe OP can
make such a request, since he's the one who wants the package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mladen,
On 4/23/12 11:36 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/23/2012 04:11 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
The problem is that there are no more 'official' httpd
binaries.
Aah, I didn't realize that ASF doesn't have official httpd
x86-64 binaries.
Exactly. Might be better to come from userland
+1
I have emailed the apache lounge contact email asking if they would
consider including a build of mod_jk - lets see what happens
Thanks
Chris
On 04/19/2012 06:33 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
I think it's reasonable for us to add x86-64 builds for mod_jk+httpd.
The problem is that there are no more 'official' httpd binaries.
Probably because the current maintainer just get bored, so the
suggested use is to use apachelaunge's
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/18/2012 02:00 PM, chris derham wrote:
All,
Our setup has apache tomcat running behind apache httpd using mod_jk. I
would like to upgrade to apache 2.4, but for this I need to find a 64bit
mod_jk release for httpd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris,
On 4/19/12 9:32 AM, chris derham wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org
wrote:
On 04/18/2012 02:00 PM, chris derham wrote:
All,
Our setup has apache tomcat running behind apache httpd using
mod_jk. I
All,
Our setup has apache tomcat running behind apache httpd using mod_jk. I
would like to upgrade to apache 2.4, but for this I need to find a 64bit
mod_jk release for httpd 2.4. The binaries contained at
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-connectors.cgi 32 bit httpd connectors,
or a 64bit iis
On 04/18/2012 02:00 PM, chris derham wrote:
All,
Our setup has apache tomcat running behind apache httpd using mod_jk. I
would like to upgrade to apache 2.4, but for this I need to find a 64bit
mod_jk release for httpd 2.4. The binaries contained at
http://tomcat.apache.org/download
it's a huge negative performance impact! to
disable connection reuse.
Well, if you think that HTTP keepalives represent a huge positive
performance impact (and I certainly do), then the opposite ought to
be true: if mod_jk has to re-establish contact with the backend Tomcat
server for every single
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 4/12/12 4:37 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
HTTP keep-alive is nearly always between a client and a server
across the internet. mod_jk keep-alive is nearly always between a
client and a server on the same LAN and often on the same machine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2012 16:20, Christopher Schultz wrote:
On 4/12/12 4:37 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
In short, disabling mod_jk keep-alive frequently has no
noticeable performance impact (some customers of mine reported a
performance improvement
@tomcat.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:09:17 PM
Subject: mod_jk - Firewall connection dropping
I have some questions about the documentation at
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/generic_howto/timeouts.html regarding
the Firewall Connection Dropping section. I don't think it's quite right
connection reuse.
Well, if you think that HTTP keepalives represent a huge positive
performance impact (and I certainly do), then the opposite ought to
be true: if mod_jk has to re-establish contact with the backend Tomcat
server for every single request, that will definitely have a negative
performance
I have some questions about the documentation at
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/generic_howto/timeouts.html regarding
the Firewall Connection Dropping section. I don't think it's quite right, but
maybe I misunderstand.
To quote the sections in question:
Many firewalls will allow
, 2012 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: upgraded fedora and mod_jk will not work
Ray Holme wrote:
I have recently upgraded from Fedora 14 to Fedora 16. I am testing 4 tomcat
applications on the local web (and one plain apache app.) on one box (no
other tricks like multiple servers ...). The below should
PS - the answer to my original question about which linux ports had to be
enabled is: 80
(if you want another machine to get at the port) - the other four ports are
internal and do not need firewall access
(8005, 8009, 8080, 8443)
over and out on this one.
- not mentioned). I still
have the old one if need be and yes I tried it too.
I installed the mod_jk.so in /usr/lib64/httpd/modules with the rest of them
(the Apache mod_jk online docs seems a little old here but were helpful).
I modified the workers.properties (removed cache stuff which apache
From: Ray Holme [mailto:rayho...@yahoo.com]
Subject: upgraded fedora and mod_jk will not work
I downloaded and built the newest mod_jk.so (tomcat-connectors-1.2.33)
Oops - please read the headline in the docs:
The Apache Tomcat team wishes to draw your attention to stability issues
2012/3/23 Ray Holme rayho...@yahoo.com:
I downloaded and built the newest mod_jk.so (tomcat-connectors-1.2.33) from
src (had to strip final binary to make it work at all - not mentioned). I
still have the old one if need be and yes I tried it too.
1.2.33 is known to be broken and causes core
it work at all - not mentioned). I still
have the old one if need be and yes I tried it too.
I installed the mod_jk.so in /usr/lib64/httpd/modules with the rest of them
(the Apache mod_jk online docs seems a little old here but were helpful).
I modified the workers.properties (removed cache
Note : you /do/ get bonus points for providing the versions of what you're
using.
Not everyone does that.
And you also got an immediate reward, in the form of Chuck's and Konstantin's warnings
about your mod_jk version (which could have caused you severe problems later, had you not
mentioned
(had to strip final binary to make it work at all - not mentioned)
What do you mean?
I mean that the built binary was NOT stripped and would not work (apache
complained about loading it - sorry I forgot the message).
I simply did strip mod_jk.so and the size went down by a factor of 4 and
(attempt=1)
[info] jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (627): connect to 127.0.0.1:8009 failed
(errno=13)
That's probably because you start httpd before tomcat, as explained earlier.
Tomcat has not opened its AJP socket 8009 yet, so httpd+mod_jk cannot connect
to it.
You could be right
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thad,
On 3/15/12 9:39 AM, Thad Humphries wrote:
Thanks. I hope I did this right. (Google is my friend, correct?) If
not, please tell me what I should have done.
Looks great. I'm not the best resource for debugging mod_jk crashes,
but it definitely
have done.
Looks great. I'm not the best resource for debugging mod_jk crashes,
but it definitely looks like either a problem directly in mod_jk or a
problem that mod_jk does not detect and crashes anyway:
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. #0
0xb720288c
Since October of last year, I have run the mod_jk connector v. 1.2.32. I
built the connector myself using Apache 2.2.15's apxs (I also built Apache
myself).
Today I downloaded, built, and installed the latest mod_jk connector, v.
1.2.33 (
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-users
= Linux
uname -v = #1 SMP PREEMPT 2011-12-19 23:39:38 +0100
Initially I tried building the connector using --with-apxs set to
the apxs in my copy of Apache 2.2.15. When that failed, I
downloaded, built, and installed Apache 2.2.22, then built mod_jk
1.2.33 with the apxs from that version. Again
Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ofer,
On 2/23/12 1:57 PM, Ofer Israeli wrote:
Felix Schumacher wrote:
Am 23.02.2012 19:32, schrieb Ofer Israeli:
Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Caldarale, Charles R Subject: RE: Tomcat with mod_jk
becomes
701 - 800 of 4151 matches
Mail list logo
