On 22/12/2015 16:22, Jason Britton wrote:
> Questions on particulars of session fail over in my on going quest for zero
> downtime deployments -
>
> My current plan is to use JDBCStore for persisting to a database table
> shared by all tomcats powering apps. But this has brought up a couple
> con
Questions on particulars of session fail over in my on going quest for zero
downtime deployments -
My current plan is to use JDBCStore for persisting to a database table
shared by all tomcats powering apps. But this has brought up a couple
concerns... If while a tomcat node is being shut down an
charles didonato wrote:
>I have 2 instances of Tomcat 7.0 on the same host with two manager apps
>(different ports) and two AJP connectors On different ports. Apache 2.4 is
>providing the load balancing and
>when I stop one instance of Tomcat, it fails over To the other instance. My
>questi
I have 2 instances of Tomcat 7.0 on the same host with two manager apps
(different ports) and two AJP connectors
On different ports. Apache 2.4 is providing the load balancing and when I
stop one instance of Tomcat, it fails over
To the other instance. My question is should I have to stop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Felix,
On 5/2/2011 12:20 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> That would be nice, if it would work, but sadly it doesn't.
>
> redirect is only alowed for a sub-worker, which is referenced indirectly
> by a load balancer group.
> See http://tomcat.apache.or
Am Montag, den 02.05.2011, 10:06 -0400 schrieb Christopher Schultz:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Felix,
>
> On 4/30/2011 5:09 AM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > The original req, as I understood it:
> >
> > tomcat1
> > \-- /abc* (active)
> > |-- /def* (passive)
> >
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Felix,
On 4/30/2011 5:09 AM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> The original req, as I understood it:
>
> tomcat1
> \-- /abc* (active)
> |-- /def* (passive)
>
> tomcat2
> \-- /abc* (passive)
> |-- /def* (active)
>
> If one of those tomcat server
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:39:09 -0400, Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Felix,
On 4/28/2011 12:44 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
"Christopher Schultz" schrieb:
Felix and Guillaume,
I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple
as
using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Felix,
On 4/28/2011 12:44 PM, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> "Christopher Schultz" schrieb:
>
> Felix and Guillaume,
>
>> I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
>> using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no cl
Hi Felix,
To keep you posted, your solution is working smoothly, the error was coming
from redirect set to the cluster instead of the jvmRoute.
My point (and for now it is a pure theorical question as I don't have the
need) was If I want to add a third or fourth server (for load reason). I
will h
"Christopher Schultz" schrieb:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Felix and Guillaume,
>
>I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
>using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
>anything like that? You don't even need to set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Felix and Guillaume,
I think you guys are working too hard for this. Isn't it as simple as
using a redirect from each worker to the other, with no clustering or
anything like that? You don't even need to set jvmRoute, etc. since
there's no cluster.
-
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:15:36 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
> Felix,
>
> Dis you check my workaround ?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
> > Felix,
> >
> > Dis you check my workaround ?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> > felix.schumac...@i
Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Favier:
> Felix,
>
> Dis you check my workaround ?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> > > On W
Felix,
Dis you check my workaround ?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24
Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2011, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Schumacher:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
> >> Thanks for your answer Felix,
> > Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
Hi Felix,
That's strange, it doesn't try to connect to the c1t2 worker, here is the
log file.
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
jk_open_socket::jk_connect.c (626): connect to 127.0.0.1:9001 failed
(errno=111)
[Wed Apr 27 11:45:33 2011] [4129:47406689800960] [info]
ajp_conne
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:58:45 +0200, Felix Schumacher wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
Thanks for your answer Felix,
Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
define two clusters:
worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
...
worker.c2t2.ty
Thanks Felix, that might do the trick. I'll test it and get back to you.
nice hack BTW.
gui
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your answer Felix,
>>
> Well, aft
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:24:16 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
Thanks for your answer Felix,
Well, after rethinking my original answer, I think you will have to
define two clusters:
worker.list=cluster1,cluster2
where each cluster worker has two distinct members
worker.cluster1.type=lb
wo
Thanks for your answer Felix,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
>> party
>> webapps name
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:40:59 +0100, Guillaume Favier wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of
third party
webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more
than
300M).
I would like all connection to ABC* webapp
Sorry for the double post, but I didn't see any remarks on this thread.
This a tricky question (at least for me), and I am a bit stuck here.
thanks
gui
Hi,
>
> I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third
> party webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
> Each of these webapp is q
Hi,
I have 2 tomcat 5.5 server. Each of them handling a set (50+) of third party
webapps name /ABC* and /DEF*.
Each of these webapp is quite memory consumming when started (more than
300M).
I would like all connection to ABC* webapps be handled by tomcat server 1,
and connection to webapps DEF* to
the scope of my app.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer the question!
Cheers
Hari
-Original Message-
From: Leandro Dardini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 3:04 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: R: Designing tomcat failover
> -Messag
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: Sivapatham, Hari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Inviato: mercoledì 5 novembre 2008 18.10
> A: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Oggetto: Designing tomcat failover
>
> Hello,
> I have to design a failover setup and I am looking for rough
&
Hello,
I have to design a failover setup and I am looking for rough
ideas/pointers. Here is our scenario...
TomcatServer1 <---/Cannot communicate to one another/->
TomcatServer2(hot backup)
^ ^
^
| \
|
| \ --- TO D
t: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:30 AM
To: "Tomcat Users List"
Subject: [programmazione] Re: Tomcat failover
Is there a reason why no one is answering this?
- Original Message -
From: Ofer Kalisky
To: Tomcat Users List
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Tomcat fa
Ofer Kalisky wrote:
Is there a reason why no one is answering this?
- Original Message -
Mmmm, let me think..
Maybe it is because this is a free forum for people to ask questions
about Tomcat, which is a free product ?
Maybe it is because nobody knows the answer ?
Maybe it is becaus
Another After Thought...
If you really have a system where only one client can talk to the dB at one
time
There is no other way go back and redesign it... its wrong ;)
-
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.ap
After Thought...
If you worried about your thread processing crashing and having a dB hald
updated... thats got nothing to do with machine redundancy... thats what dB
transactions are for...
So one tomcat is never going to pick up on anothers processing thread
All that will happen if you
- Original Message -
From: "Ofer Kalisky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Tomcat failover
Is there a reason why no one is answering this?
- Original Message -
From: Ofer Kalisky
T
Ofer Kalisky wrote:
Is there a reason why no one is answering this?
http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/FAQ/Tomcat_User#Q2
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Ofer Kalisky
To: Tomcat Users List
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Tomcat failover
Hi,
I have a
Is there a reason why no one is answering this?
- Original Message -
From: Ofer Kalisky
To: Tomcat Users List
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Tomcat failover
Hi,
I have a Tomcat that has a thread that reads entries from a DB and handles
them. In each
Hi,
I have a Tomcat that has a thread that reads entries from a DB and handles
them. In each cycle, it reads all the entries (to a certain limit). I would
like to set up a configuration that has a failover Tomcat, that when the first
one crashes the second starts to read from the same DB (or a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew,
Andrew Hole wrote:
> But, what happens to active [HTTP] sessions? I will lose all
> information associated to the active sessions?
Of course. Since Tomcat is managing the session in memory, and Tomcat
dies, the memory is released and its cont
Both.
I know that jdbc connections will die.
But, what happens to active sessions? I will lose all information associated
to the active sessions?
Thanks
On 9/13/07, Christopher Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrew,
>
> Andrew Hole wrot
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2007 18:30
An: Tomcat Users List
Betreff: Tomcat failover
Hello!
I've two tomcat instances connected to an Oracle database and I'm using
connection pool.
If one of the instances crashes, exists some way to repair the sessions
e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew,
Andrew Hole wrote:
> If one of the instances crashes, exists some way to repair the sessions
> established with the database and to be processed for the other instance?
If your JVM goes down, your JDBC connections will die, too. Do you you
me
Hello!
I've two tomcat instances connected to an Oracle database and I'm using
connection pool.
If one of the instances crashes, exists some way to repair the sessions
established with the database and to be processed for the other instance?
Thanks a lot
Andrew
41 matches
Mail list logo
