Unless you're using the -current version of FreeBSD, it's not threaded.
Apache2 should really only be used on Operating systems that are threaded
or you don't realize any gain from it other than some new mods.
You're running the linux version of the JDK because there is no native
port for 1.4 for FreeBSD, yet. Why not use the linux binary version of
Tomcat together with the linux version of apache and the linux binary
version of mod_jk2? The linux emulation layer runs out of the kernel so
it should not be too much overhead.
I wish FreeBSD did have a native port for JDK 1.4.
rls
Malachi de AElfweald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/07/2002 01:30 PM
Please respond to "Tomcat Users List"
To: tomcat-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: RE: RE: JK2 Installation
I'm sorry if that seemed a bit harsh -- it was not meant to be. I had
just read
a LOT of emails from you, and that was how it came across.
Originally, the problem I was having with FreeBSD was that if I tried to
LoadModule
the mod_jk2.so, it said that pthread_mutex_unlock was unknown. I did a
lot of
investigation, and came to the conclusion that '-pthread' had to be added
to the
CC flags. In doing so, I have, as of yet, not been able to build
mod_jk2.so anymore.
Not sure why. Can't figure it out.
Regarding the example you've shown. I have seen that one repeatedly, and
it only
applies to sockets. It does not apply to using the inprocess JNI, which I
am trying
to use because Tomcat is REALLY slow, even locally on the LAN. That is
supposed to
speed it up..... but, there is no example of configuring for it...
I might have to subscribe to the dev list. I haven't, because I don't
have the time
to spend on it... I had previously been actively on the Ant development
list, and it
was very time consuming. I don't have that kind of time right now. I
know, in theory,
that it is supposed to be possible -- I just haven't figured out how yet.
Perhaps
I will join -dev so someone can tell me.
I didn't realize that page was the Goal. I downloaded Tomcat, went to the
online docs,
and started following directions. I can get it to work standalone now,
but have it shut
down because it is just too slow. When I found the "why to use JK2", I
thought it was more
like saying "Why use JDK1.4 over JDK1.02"....
Thanks for your reply, hopefully I will be able to figure this out.
Malachi
10/7/2002 1:20:19 PM, "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>OK, let's be honest if we're going to post. I certainly did not say "JK2
is
>in beta, not to be trusted, use something else, read the list, don't
>complain about the documentation, etc etc"
>
>I _did_ say JK2 is "beta". That has different meanings to different
people.
>I'm primarily a sys-admin in charge of production servers. If someone
(that
>someone being from the dev or release team) posts that JK2 should be
>considered "beta", that means "not fit for production yet, but probably
OK
>for development if you don't mind a few bugs". That's me. To others,
>"beta" may mean something entirely different. To each, his/her own, make
>your own decisions.
>
>JServ and JK have been working great for me, on high-traffic,
>resource-intensive, production sites. I see no reason to jump on the JK2
>bandwagon until the codebase is more stable. Again, that's me, and
perhaps
>the latest version (2.0.1) is that codebase, I have no way of knowing
>without testing it myself and seeing what other people do with it.
>Latest/greatest isn't always the wisest. That said, use whatever you
want.
>
>RE: the documentation, you are welcome to complain. I only posted the
>replies that I posted in defense of those people on the list who have
gone
>above and beyond to contribute to the documentation effort, beyond that
of
>the dev team. These people have spent a lot of time working on their
>documents, and have posted the URLs to the list many times. Robert
Sowders
>has regularly posted a full list of HOWTOs for various platforms and
>versions to supplement the "official" documentation. These posts can be
>found in a search. If you want to complain, that's cool, but your
>complaints will get a lot more attention if you contribute to the effort.
>It's your choice.
>
>Now that we've put my comments and posts back into their correct context,
>let's get back to your questions (inline):
>
>> From: Malachi de AElfweald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:57 PM
>> To: Turner, John; Short, Dave; tomcat-list
>> Subject: Re: RE: JK2 Installation
>>
>> 1) I can't figure out how to get mod_jk2 to build on FreeBSD
>> (using linux-sun-jdk14 and Apache2.0.42 and Tomcat 4.1.12).
>> In the last 4 days, I
>> somehow built mod_jk2.so once,
>> but then it complained about pthreads... I figured out that I
>> need to add "-pthread"
>> to the CC flags.... but now it won't build the .so files --
>> even if it says it does, they
>> aren't there.
>
>I've deleted your other posts from my InBox because I don't have access
to a
>FreeBSD machine at this time, even though I love FreeBSD and think its a
>great OS. If you want to post the errors again, I will try to help. Give
>me access to a FreeBSD machine, and I can probably get a build for you,
but
>no promises.
>
>> 2) What is the correct way to use the inprocess-jni? None of
>> the examples use that.
>
>If it's not in the docs, your best option is to subscribe to tomcat-dev,
NOT
>tomcat-user, and post your questions there. JK2 is in active
development,
>if you are using a feature that isn't available in the docs, the BEST
place
>to ask your question is to ask it where the DEVELOPERS are, and that is
>tomcat-dev.
>
>>
>> 3) What is the correct way to do the worker2.properties when
>> dealing with Apache VirtualHosts?
>>
>
>RTFS (read the friendly source). Others have posted in the past how
things
>work for various portions of connectors, including JK, not just JK2,
because
>they read the source code.
>
>That said, it seems pretty self-explanatory to me based on the HOWTOs
that
>have been posted, and I don't even use JK2:
>
># define the worker
>[ajp13:localhost:8009]
>channel=channel.un:/usr/local/tomcat/work/jk2.socket
># To use the TCP/IP socket instead, just comment out the above
># line, and uncomment the one below
>#channel=channel.socket:localhost:8009
>
># Announce a "status" worker
>[status:status]
>
># Uri mapping
>[uri:/examples/*]
>#worker=ajp13:localhost:8009
>worker=ajp13:/usr/local/tomcat/work/jk2.socket
>
>Note the places where it says "localhost". The first place I would
start,
>if I was using JK2, would be to replace "localhost" with the FQDN of the
>virtual host, and see what happened. But that's me.
>
>> Oh, and by the way, as to John's question about why I am
>> using JK2... The JK/JK2 documentation
>> states that it is designed for Apache2, might support JDK 1.4
>> NIO at some point, and is better
>> at JNI -- which I am doing all of those things.
>
>That's fine, I am not a cop. It doesn't make a difference to me what you
>use, except that in my opinion, it seems like wasted time and effort
banging
>your head trying to figure something out that may not even have a
solution
>yet because the guy writing the code hasn't even written it. The
statement
>everyone quotes about "why to use JK2" is a GOAL, not a shipped
>specification sheet...it's what the developers WANT JK2 to be, not
>necessarily what it is today. But, it's your time and effort, so bang
>away. Or, for that matter, jump into the dev effort and write the code
if
>you have a need for it quicker than what the rest of the team can produce
>(same goes for docs).
>
>Have a great day.
>
>John
>
>--
>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]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
