Thanks for your response JB. I implemented the mod_proxy_balancer and am now
able to load balance the HTTP requests.
1 quick question: If I have multiple HTTP Services(say 3) deployed in both
servicemix1 and servicemix2, should I specify three <Proxy balancer:> sets
in httpd.conf or should the httpd.conf have the generic urls pointing to
servicemix instances and the service configuration be done somewhere else?

Thanks for your time on this,
Deepika

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: HTTP requests on a servicemix cluster

Hi Deepika,

I guess that you point http://servicemix1:port/...

In that case, only the servicemix1 node will manage your request.

It's not ServiceMix which manage this. You need to add a kind of load 
balancer in front on ServiceMix.
This load balancer could be hardware (F5, Cisco) or software.

For example, using Apache mod_proxy_balancer, you can use something like:

<Proxy balancer://servicemixcluster>
BalancerMember http://servicemix1:8181
BalancerMember http://servicemix2:8181
</Proxy>
ProxyPass /servicemix balancer://servicemixcluster

Regards
JB

Deepika wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I am using SMX 3.3.1 on Windows XP and am learning on the cluster
> functionality available.
> I have two servicemix instances in cluster. I have tested clustering
> functionality in the following way:
> Deployed a file poller,sender service assembly on both the instances. Both
> instances are polling on the same directory(a shared folder). When I put
> sample xmls in the poller directory, I see that some files are processed
by
> servicemix1 and others by the instance servicemix2.
> 
> But when I deployed a HTTP example on both instances, I observed that all
> the HTTP requests are being processed only by servicemix1. What
> configuration is required for the HTTP requests to be processed by both
the
> servicemix instances? Is it possible with the SMX 3.3.1 install alone?
> 
> Thanks in Advance,
> Deepika
> 

Reply via email to