RE: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
-Original Message-
From: Pid [mailto:p...@pidster.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:09 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 15/11/2011 15:00, Jeffrey Janner wrote:
Alexander -
From reading your emails, it sounds like you have the following setup
F5 HW-balancer
|
/ \
/ \ Level 1 balancing
/ \
HTTPD1 HTTPD2
| |
Level 2 balancing
| | |
TC1 TC2TC3
Is that correct?
You state that you want to eliminate Level 2.
However, from a performance standpoint, why would you? Without the
Level 2 balancing, it is conceivable that one of the 3 Tomcats could
end up processing the bulk the JSP requests.
Why?
p
To be honest, I don't think you can set up the Level 2 without some form of
load-balancing, even if it is just round-robin. But perhaps I'm not processing
the full impact of how the whole structure will work, considering the OP wanted
to eliminate the Level 2 LB.
I would think one would want the F5 to balance the loads on the HTTPD servers
for that traffic, and let the HTTPD servers decide best use of the Tomcats to
avoid overloading one (reason for LB). Since the OP hasn't bothered to provide
his physical or logical layout and his exact goals, I was postulating on theory
alone.
However, his subsequent response makes it sound like he has 3 systems with
HTTPD Tomcat on each system. It sounds like what he really wants is for
HTTPD to forward only to Tomcat on the same server and let the F5 load balance
and failover that setup. Sounds reasonable, and fairly easy to set up.
However, if he wants the above LOGICAL setup, then he needs to rethink his
architecture. For example, my suggestion at the beginning of this paragraph
won't handle failover where only the Tomcat on server1 goes down, but the HTTPD
is active. Configuring for that eventuality takes a little more thought. I've
not done enough playing with the mod_jk config to be sure that is possible, but
no one who is has weighed in on the specifics of his problem, probably because
he hasn't fully explained the scenario he is trying to implement.
Jeff
__
Confidentiality Notice: This Transmission (including any attachments) may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to
the sender or telephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your
system.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 14/11/2011 10:42, Alexander Diedler wrote: Hello It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP F5, so we don´t need a “double” balanced request, first time by the HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself. So don't put httpd+mod_jk in front - just point the F5 at the Tomcats. p -- [key:62590808] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello, Yes, it was an option to solve my problem. But what about the performance? My opinion was to forward only necessary requests to the Tomcat (jsp, java etc) and let the Apache HTTPD deliver the static content (CSS,JS,Images etc). Best regards Alexander -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Pid [mailto:p...@pidster.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 12:41 An: Tomcat Users List Betreff: Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing On 14/11/2011 10:42, Alexander Diedler wrote: Hello It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time by the HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself. So don't put httpd+mod_jk in front - just point the F5 at the Tomcats. p -- [key:62590808] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 11/15/2011 12:55 PM, Alexander Diedler wrote: Hello, Yes, it was an option to solve my problem. But what about the performance? My opinion was to forward only necessary requests to the Tomcat (jsp, java etc) and let the Apache HTTPD deliver the static content (CSS,JS,Images etc). Use native connector and you won't have to worry about the static file performance. It'll be few times faster compared to any proxy. Unless you need httpd for something like php or special auth, use tomcat directly. Regards -- ^TM - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
RE: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Alexander -
From reading your emails, it sounds like you have the following setup
F5 HW-balancer
|
/ \
/ \ Level 1 balancing
/ \
HTTPD1 HTTPD2
| |
Level 2 balancing
| | |
TC1 TC2TC3
Is that correct?
You state that you want to eliminate Level 2.
However, from a performance standpoint, why would you? Without the Level 2
balancing, it is conceivable that one of the 3 Tomcats could end up processing
the bulk the JSP requests.
However, Pid is correct. If you are worried about performance, you could drop
the HTTPD servers and balance directly to the Tomcat servers. Tomcat is just
as fast at delivering static content as HTTPD, and it simplifies deployment.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Diedler [mailto:adied...@tecracer.de]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:56 AM
To: Tomcat Users List; p...@pidster.com
Subject: AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello,
Yes, it was an option to solve my problem. But what about the
performance?
My opinion was to forward only necessary requests to the Tomcat (jsp,
java
etc) and let the Apache HTTPD deliver the static content (CSS,JS,Images
etc).
Best regards
Alexander
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pid [mailto:p...@pidster.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 12:41
An: Tomcat Users List
Betreff: Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 14/11/2011 10:42, Alexander Diedler wrote:
Hello
It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the
loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session
replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP
F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time by the
HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself.
So don't put httpd+mod_jk in front - just point the F5 at the Tomcats.
p
--
[key:62590808]
__
Confidentiality Notice: This Transmission (including any attachments) may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to
the sender or telephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your
system.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 15/11/2011 15:00, Jeffrey Janner wrote:
Alexander -
From reading your emails, it sounds like you have the following setup
F5 HW-balancer
|
/ \
/ \ Level 1 balancing
/ \
HTTPD1 HTTPD2
| |
Level 2 balancing
| | |
TC1 TC2TC3
Is that correct?
You state that you want to eliminate Level 2.
However, from a performance standpoint, why would you? Without the Level 2
balancing, it is conceivable that one of the 3 Tomcats could end up
processing the bulk the JSP requests.
Why?
p
However, Pid is correct. If you are worried about performance, you could drop
the HTTPD servers and balance directly to the Tomcat servers. Tomcat is just
as fast at delivering static content as HTTPD, and it simplifies deployment.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Diedler [mailto:adied...@tecracer.de]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:56 AM
To: Tomcat Users List; p...@pidster.com
Subject: AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello,
Yes, it was an option to solve my problem. But what about the
performance?
My opinion was to forward only necessary requests to the Tomcat (jsp,
java
etc) and let the Apache HTTPD deliver the static content (CSS,JS,Images
etc).
Best regards
Alexander
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pid [mailto:p...@pidster.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 12:41
An: Tomcat Users List
Betreff: Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 14/11/2011 10:42, Alexander Diedler wrote:
Hello
It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the
loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session
replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP
F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time by the
HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself.
So don't put httpd+mod_jk in front - just point the F5 at the Tomcats.
p
--
[key:62590808]
__
Confidentiality Notice: This Transmission (including any attachments) may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to
the sender or telephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your
system.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
--
[key:62590808]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello,
I want to avoid, that Level1 LB routes to HTTPD1 and HTTPD1 (on same server
as TC1) also balance to TC2 on level 2. So the next request from Level 1 go
to HTTD2 (on same server as TC2) and so I have double load on the same
server. Or is my understanding not right?
If a Tomcat (TC3) give up.. the Level 1 LB should recordnized that and
should redirect only to the functional Tomcats. The Failover functionality
should be provided only by the Level 1 LB.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 16:01
An: 'Tomcat Users List'
Betreff: RE: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Alexander -
From reading your emails, it sounds like you have the following setup
F5 HW-balancer
|
/ \
/ \ Level 1 balancing
/ \
HTTPD1 HTTPD2
| |
Level 2 balancing
| | |
TC1 TC2TC3
Is that correct?
You state that you want to eliminate Level 2.
However, from a performance standpoint, why would you? Without the Level 2
balancing, it is conceivable that one of the 3 Tomcats could end up
processing the bulk the JSP requests.
However, Pid is correct. If you are worried about performance, you could
drop the HTTPD servers and balance directly to the Tomcat servers. Tomcat
is just as fast at delivering static content as HTTPD, and it simplifies
deployment.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Diedler [mailto:adied...@tecracer.de]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:56 AM
To: Tomcat Users List; p...@pidster.com
Subject: AW: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello,
Yes, it was an option to solve my problem. But what about the
performance?
My opinion was to forward only necessary requests to the Tomcat (jsp,
java
etc) and let the Apache HTTPD deliver the static content
(CSS,JS,Images etc).
Best regards
Alexander
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pid [mailto:p...@pidster.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 12:41
An: Tomcat Users List
Betreff: Re: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
On 14/11/2011 10:42, Alexander Diedler wrote:
Hello
It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the
loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session
replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a
Big-IP F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time
by the HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself.
So don't put httpd+mod_jk in front - just point the F5 at the Tomcats.
p
--
[key:62590808]
__
Confidentiality Notice: This Transmission (including any attachments) may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to
the sender or telephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from
your system.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Hello It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time by the HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself. Best regards Alexander smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing
Alexander - Can you give us a better idea of how you are deploying everthing? Perhaps a simple ASCII map showing how the systems are related? Jeff From: Alexander Diedler [mailto:adied...@tecracer.de] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 4:42 AM To: users@tomcat.apache.org Subject: mod_jk Avoid loadbalancing Hello It is possible in a three node TC 6.0 / TC7.0 Cluster to avoid the loadbalancing between these three nodes? We only need the session replication. The Loadbalancing with failover will be done by a Big-IP F5, so we don´t need a double balanced request, first time by the HW-balancer and second time by the Apache mod_jk himself. Best regards Alexander __ Confidentiality Notice: This Transmission (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender or telephone (512) 343-9100 and delete this transmission from your system.
