John,
I was simply making the assumption that the connector code released with
Tomcat 4.1.24 had been tested and validated to be at a stable point for that release.
I understand that there are two parts to the code and that the connectors are a
separate project. What I want to know is:
1) Does anyone know why my mod_jk2 configuration posted below fails intermittently.
I wouldn't be asking any of this if it were working reliably.
2) Is mod_jk or mod_jk2 preferred for stable "production" use with moderate user
loads (100-250 concurrent sessions per Tomcat, 2x Tomcat, 5-10 req/sec for the apache
2.0.45).
3) Which code release of mod_jk or mod_jk2 should I use if not the one released with
4.1.24? I know it's not the newest but the newest isn't always stable and I have to
pick a stable point to test and release with.
Thanks!
Jamey
FROM AN EARLIER EMAIL:
We recently upgraded our production systems to Tomcat 4.1.24 and Apache 2.0.45 from
3.2.2 and 1.3.19 respectively and have noticed a VERY pleasing increase in performance
and over an 80% reduction in system load. We also decided to deploy with mod_jk2 and
the whole system behaved itself quite well during QA and some load testing (admittedly
not overly thorough). We pushed to production and things ran fine for a couple of
days but now, every day or two, our Apache partially loses communication with one of
the two Tomcats it's load balancing accross (not always the same one). The result is
that requests block on Apache and the load goes up as users click away trying to get
their page(s) to load. Restarting the Tomcat seems to rectify the problem until the
next time...
Any thoughts on this problem and the overall maturity of mod_jk2 vs. mod_jk would be
very helpful. Many thanks to all!
Jamey
James Courtney
InPhonic, Inc.
Hayward, CA
*******************
** Apache Errors **
*******************
inunison.com:8081 145 Connection timed out [Wed Jun 25 15:08:10 2003] [error]
ajp13.connect() failed ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:10 2003]
[error] ajp13.service() failed to connect endpoint errno=145 Connection timed out [Wed
Jun 25 15:08:10 2003] [error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding
ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 1 1 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:10 2003] [error] lb.service()
worker failed 120000 for ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:13 2003]
[error] channelSocket.open() connect failed portal4.somedomain.com:8081 145 Connection
timed out [Wed Jun 25 15:08:13 2003] [error] ajp13.connect() failed
ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:13 2003] [error] ajp13.service()
failed to connect endpoint errno=145 Connection timed out [Wed Jun 25 15:08:13 2003]
[error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 1 1 [Wed
Jun 25 15:08:13 2003] [error] lb.service() worker failed 120000 for
ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:22 2003] [error]
channelSocket.open() connect failed portal4.somedomain.com:8081 145 Connection timed
out [Wed Jun 25 15:08:22 2003] [error] ajp13.connect() failed
ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 [Wed Jun 25 15:08:22 2003] [error] ajp13.service()
failed to connect endpoint errno=145 Connection timed out [Wed Jun 25 15:08:22 2003]
[error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081 1 1 [Wed
Jun 25 15:08:22 2003] [error] lb.service() worker failed 120000 for
ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081
****************************
** WORKERS2 CONFIGURATION **
****************************
# only at beginning. In production uncomment it out
[logger.apache2]
level=ERROR
[shm]
file=/tmp/workers2shmDONOTDELETE.file
size=1048576
# portal3 socket
[channel.socket:portal3.somedomain.com:8081]
host=portal3.somedomain.com
port=8081
tomcatId=portal3
group=lb:balanced
graceful=1
# portal3 worker
[ajp13:portal3.somedomain.com:8081]
channel=channel.socket:portal3.somedomain.com:8081
lb_factor=12
# portal4 socket
[channel.socket:portal4.somedomain.com:8081]
host=portal4.somedomain.com
port=8081
tomcatId=portal4
group=lb:balanced
# portal4 worker
[ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081]
channel=channel.socket:portal4.somedomain.com:8081
lb_factor=12
# Load balanced worker
[lb:balanced]
worker=ajp13:portal3.somedomain.com:8081
worker=ajp13:portal4.somedomain.com:8081
# sticky is on by default but setting it adds a harmless error to the log
#stickySession=1
# Define a status worker
[status:status]
# URI mapping
[uri:/*]
group=lb:balanced
# Status URI mapping (should not be publicly accessible!!!)
[uri:/jkstatus]
group=status:status
-----Original Message-----
From: John Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: mod_jk and Coyote connector
Development on the connectors, especially the C side, happens separately
from Tomcat development. Keep in mind that there are two types of
"connectors". There are Tomcat connectors, which are in server.xml (like
CoyoteConnector) and are written in Java. There are Apache HTTP
connectors, which are configured in httpd.conf, are Apache DSOs, and are
written in C (mod_jk, mod_jk2).
The most recent Apache HTTP connector code will be in the URL I posted
earlier, not under the Tomcat 4.1.24 distribution location, AFAIK.
That said, I have had no problems with JK and see no reason to use JK2, but
that's me.
JK is pretty basic...the logs will tell you what's going on, and if they
don't then Apache's own logs will.
John
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:19:56 -0700, James Courtney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thanks John,
> So you don't think that using the src distribution of the connectors
> provided with Tomcat 4.1.24 is advisable? I'll see if I can get some log
> information representing my lack of functionality but honestly mod_jk
> seems even less verbose than mod_jk2 with logging errors even with the
> CoyoteConnector set to debug=10 and the JkLogLevel set to debug. I'll
> see if I can formulate something more concrete for your guys then. I'm
> only looking at mod_jk because we've had problems with our mod_jk2
> installation. Do you have any thoughts on mod_jk2 and it's maturity?
> Many thanks!
>
> Jamey
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:23 AM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: mod_jk and Coyote connector
>
>
>
> Yes, CoyoteConnector fully supports JK. Its what I use in production. I
> would avoid Ajp13Connector, unless you need it.
>
> I would use the actual source for the connectors:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/
>
> If you want ot post your JK problems to the list, we can help. Many,
> many people are using JK and are quite happy with it. I know I am.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:57:18 -0700, James Courtney
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not that I've had any luck getting mod_jk to work with either the legacy
>> Ajp13Connector or the CoyoteConnector but which one should be used? I
>> know that the CoyoteConnector is required for mod_jk2 and I've had that
>> working (mostly, occasional lapses in communication, see other messages
>> to user list) but is it compatible with mod_jk. I'm using Apache 2.0.45
>> with Tomcat 4.1.24 and the mod_jk and mod_jk2 connectors were built from
>> the Tomcat 4.1.24 connectors release found at
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-4.0/release/v4.1.24/src/
>>
>> Many thanks!
>>
>> Jamey
>>
>
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
