Hi, My understanding of the old lb-worker is that although you can tweak its behavior using load-balancing factors, it does not theoretically cover:
(1) all requests without a session are routed to a specific tomcat instance (if that instance is working). (2) Tomcat instances in standby or "soft shutdown" mode where they serve requests bound by established sessions, and requests without a session only if all non-standby instances have failed. (1) is (as noted previously) useful when you have a cluster of Apache servers. (2) is useful in a 24x7 production environment. eg mark an instance for "soft shutdown", wait for existing sessions to expire, do maintenance (hardware or software), and then add instance back to normal lb-mode. It would be great to have support for both in jk2, for example by using percentage values for load-balancing factors (adding up to 100% for all instances in a group). Then, for (1) adjust the lbfactor to 100%, and for (2) adjust the lbfactor to 0%. BTW, I think both the Group/Instance and the Autoconfig proporsals are very good indeed. cheers, amund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > >> some weeks ago I send a patch for mod_jk for an only routing lb_worker. A few >> days later I sent the docu. Henry Gomez said, that it should be commited. But it >> I think it isn't in the repository. But its the same with me here, to mutch >> work for to less time :). > >I think it is in mod_jk, I remember seeing the commit. > >And I think I commited it in jk2 as well ( after some modifications ). > >> I need sticky sessions but no loadbalancing in the module. If a request without >> a session comes in, it should be routed to the _local_ tomcat. > >Well, there is another use-case with the exact same behavior - Apache2 >with tomcat in JNI mode. All requests without session should be routed to >the _jni_ channel ( i.e. in-process, minimal overhead ). > >It's exacly the same - so be sure I do my best to handle this case :-) > >Apache2 acts like a 'natural' load-balancer/fail-over, with the parent >process monitoring for crashes and it starts/stop childs based on >load. > > >> I think this could be possible with the associated instance of a channel (item >> 7). Then I have to configure all four nodes for the same group. Because all >> nodes will serve the same webapps and associate the channel with this group. But >> for this I need a non balancing group. I don't see if the default behavior of a >> group is balancing and if this can be switched off. Is this right or do I miss >> something? > >The default is balancing, but you can tune this using weithgs ( and I >think we use your code for making one instance 'top priority'). > >Please check the code, take a look and send additional comments/patches. > >It's not yet completely done, of course. > > >Thanks, >Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
