Hi,
2016-05-23 18:56 GMT+09:00 Hans-Joachim Kliemeck <
hans-joachim.kliem...@hays.de>:
> Hey,
>
> > If you do not set the LocalMember,
> > the implementation class of local members will become MemberImpl rather
> than the StaticMember.
> > In addition, you can not explicitly specify the domain
Hey,
> If you do not set the LocalMember,
> the implementation class of local members will become MemberImpl rather than
> the StaticMember.
> In addition, you can not explicitly specify the domain and the uniqueId of
> local member.
> If you do not mind these, there is no problem if you do not
2016-05-19 17:55 GMT+09:00 Hans-Joachim Kliemeck <
hans-joachim.kliem...@hays.de>:
> Hey,
>
> currently i'm building up a tomcat cluster and after studying the
> documentation/source some questions came up:
>
> Is it really necessary to add a LocalMember xml element to the
>
Hey,
currently i'm building up a tomcat cluster and after studying the
documentation/source some questions came up:
Is it really necessary to add a LocalMember xml element to the
StaticMembershipInterceptor? I found a lot examples where this element was not
added. FYI: we are using TCP and no
Hello everybody,
Next month, we'll have 6 servers connected to a SAN. Those servers will
be in a web farm. And web documents will on a GFS file system.
I'd like to install Tomcat 5 and/or 5.5 on those servers and use its
cluster's possibilities (mod_jk for example).
Some webapps need
talk to your operations team or sys admins, in conjunction you will come
up with a solution that works for you.
ie, you can deploy the webapp in a shared directory on the san, and have
all tomcats read it from there, its up to you
FM wrote:
Hello everybody,
Next month, we'll have 6 servers
