1 Understood, it was just to get some ballpark indication 2 Surely then the new session would be balanced to the faster machine, and I would see more activity on them.
3 That would explain everything :( Would a move to mod_jk2 be of any use, or should I get someone to put their hand in their pocket and upgrade the other two boxes Thanks for the reply. Lee On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Ralph Einfeldt wrote: > > 1. mod_jk doesn't balance the load on the base of > packets. > > 2. mod_jk works with sticky sessions so only new sessions > are balanced. I belief but am not shure that it's just > round robin. > > 3. Bill Barker claims that the load balancing is broken > as the instances of mod_jk don't know the load of each > other. So mod_jk will balance to some extend but not as > good as it could/should. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:37 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: mod_jk lbfactor strangeness > > > > I've an apache servers with 4 backend app servers and using mod_jk to > > balance the load over them. > > > > Two of the machines are a fair bit quicker than the other > > two, so I've adjusted the weighting with lbfactor > > > > app1 (slow) = lbfactor=100 > > app2 (slow) = lbfactor=100 > > app3 (fast) = lbfactor=150 > > app4 (fast) = lbfactor=150 > > > > Yet what I see is that app2 and app3 get most of the load? > > > > I've checked this with snoop(tcpdump) and counted the packets to the > > various app servers. And app2 and app3 defiantly seems to be getting > > more work. I've checked my host file and workers.properties and all > > seems right. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
