"David Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bill Barker wrote: > > "Antonio Fiol Bonn�n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, I am worried about what you say about Apache 2.0.x and the > >> 'worker' MPM. Could you please tell me about the real-world > >> inconveniences of having 3/4 Apache 1.3.X with 2/3 tomcats behind? > > > > The mod_jk loadbalancer doesn't work well with pre-fork (including > > Apache 1.3.x on *nix systems). Since your not using the mod_jk > > loadbalancer, it shouldn't matter if you are using 1.3.x or 2.0.x. > > I'm curious, what are the issues with loadbalancing in mod_jk with a > pre-forking Apache? >
Basically it comes down to the fact that the children don't talk to one another, so each one has its own idea of the relative loads. This usually results in a distribution (for the two-Tomcat case) somewhere between 70-30 and 80-20 (although people on this list have reported even more skewed distributions). It should get even more skewed as you increase the number of Tomcats. mod_jk2 already has the scoreboard (aka shm) in place to allow for the children to coordinate this, but at the moment isn't using it for loadbalancing (and so, is just as broken as mod_jk). I can't add much more except that patches are always welcome ;-) > -Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
