On 06.03.2009 14:19, Mladen Turk wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.03.2009 13:32, Mladen Turk wrote:
Huge one Rainer ;)
I know, but I went through it in depth.
Rainer Jung wrote:
We have three busy counters:
a) one for the lb in total
b) one for each lb sub
c) one for each ajp worker
In status worker we use only a) and c). In lb we use a) and b). Your
comment to BZ 46808 seems to indicate, that using c) instead ob b) in
lb would be better. We could then again remove b).
Right?
So we could drop the rec->s->busy++ and --, because that's done for
the ajp busyness alredy in jk_ajp_common.c and we would test against
aw->s->busy instead of rec->s->busy.
OK?
No because rec->s->busy is per-lb info,
and aw->s-busy >= res->s->busy if aw is member
of multiple lb's
But isn't the whole purpose of your changes to give the backend still
a chance, if it is processing requests? Why does it then matter,
whether those requests come from the same lb??
Any answer to that one? You are using this busy only for the purpose to
differentiate between a busy backend (do not put it into global error
under certain circumstances) and an idle backend (take most errors more
seriously, because they are not simply triggered by ovrload).
So the real load should be the best differentiator, and aw->s-busy is
close to the real load than res->s->busy.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
