I'll bring that to dev list ...
bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46808
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> 2009-03-06 00:13:55
PST ---
So having the "new" busy in shm is on purpose, and we have three of those:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
b) and c) are very likely, but not the same, e.g. when the ajp worker is used
in more than one lb, or is used in an lb and also as a direct worker.
But from your explanation I would think, that using the c) busy would be even
better than using the b) busy?
Right, think that first two are only for a statistical purposes
(used in load balancing algorithms)
The ajp worker busy reflects the total number of established
physical backend connections to host:port instance.
The first two needs to be detached for ajp cause one worker
can be shared among multiple balancers.
Regards
--
^(TM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
