Late Binding
All, Can we add a new state to bind the port after the startup is completed. Right now start will start the app after binding to the port. We can delay the binf after connector is started using bindOnInit. But this is a little different. StartOnly - Starts The Server and the apps. Bind - Then Binds it to the Port and the server starts listening Unbind - Unbinds the port, but keep the server running not listening Stop- Will Stop(and unbind if bound) the server. The usecase for this is instant rollback (which can also be achieved with parallel deployment, but within the same process), Two servers will be running but one will be bound, and if there is a need to rollback to the old version, we can unbind this and bind the other. This will also help make the best use of the PORT_REUSE of the latest 3.9.0 linux kernel feature. Does that make any sense? Thanks Suresh
Re: Late Binding
Hi Mark, Thank you very much for the response. Sounds good. Would the init be also initializing the app?. Because we want the bind(start in this scenario) to be as small as possible. Thanks Suresh On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 08/11/2013 04:18, Suresh Mathew wrote: > > All, > > Can we add a new state to bind the port after the startup is completed. > > > > Right now start will start the app after binding to the port. We can > delay > > the binf after connector is started using bindOnInit. But this is a > little > > different. > > > > StartOnly - Starts The Server and the apps. > > Bind - Then Binds it to the Port and the server starts listening > > Unbind - Unbinds the port, but keep the server running not listening > > Stop- Will Stop(and unbind if bound) the server. > > > > The usecase for this is instant rollback (which can also be achieved with > > parallel deployment, but within the same process), Two servers will be > > running but one will be bound, and if there is a need to rollback to the > > old version, we can unbind this and bind the other. > > > > This will also help make the best use of the PORT_REUSE of the latest > 3.9.0 > > linux kernel feature. > > > > Does that make any sense? > > It does, but I think I'd implement it a different way. A flag could be > added to the Service to decouple the init() and start() of the > connectors. They could then be started and stoped as required via JMX. > Stopping the Service would always stop and attached connectors. > > Mark > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
Re: Late Binding
Got it Konstantin, Thank you... But stopping and starting would mean that
we spend time in between and wont be able to instance switch?.
Thanks
Suresh
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Konstantin Kolinko
wrote:
> 2013/11/8 Suresh Mathew :
> > All,
> > Can we add a new state to bind the port after the startup is completed.
> >
> > Right now start will start the app after binding to the port. We can
> delay
> > the binf after connector is started using bindOnInit. But this is a
> little
> > different.
> >
> > StartOnly - Starts The Server and the apps.
> > Bind - Then Binds it to the Port and the server starts listening
> > Unbind - Unbinds the port, but keep the server running not listening
> > Stop- Will Stop(and unbind if bound) the server.
> >
> > The usecase for this is instant rollback (which can also be achieved with
> > parallel deployment, but within the same process), Two servers will be
> > running but one will be bound, and if there is a need to rollback to the
> > old version, we can unbind this and bind the other.
> >
> > This will also help make the best use of the PORT_REUSE of the latest
> 3.9.0
> > linux kernel feature.
> >
> > Does that make any sense?
> >
> >
>
> Bind it to a random port ("0"), then stop & reconfigure & start it via JMX?
>
> Note that it would not work if you run Tomcat via jsvc and want to
> bind it to a privileged port (80). JSVC drops privileges once the init
> completes.
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Kolinko
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Late Binding
On 11/11/2013 04:35, Suresh Mathew wrote: > Hi Mark, > Thank you very much for the response. Sounds good. Would the init be > also initializing the app?. >>No. The Containers would start normally. It would just be the the >>connector(s) that had to be started later. I agree, Let me try the connector solution and get back to you. > Because we want the bind(start in this > scenario) to be as small as possible. >>The more you articulate your requirement, the more I think this is the >>wrong solution and that what you really need to be doing is either using >>a load-balancer or using parallel deployment. You also have the option >>of the approach Konstantin suggested elsewhere in this thread. >>I'm reluctant to add yet another configuration option for a use case >>that can already be met in multiple ways. Parallel deployment may not work for us as the apps will be sharing the same process. Loadbalancer will definitely work for us, but is another application(software load balancer) to manage. Suresh On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 11/11/2013 04:35, Suresh Mathew wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Thank you very much for the response. Sounds good. Would the init be > > also initializing the app?. > > No. The Containers would start normally. It would just be the the > connector(s) that had to be started later. > > > Because we want the bind(start in this > > scenario) to be as small as possible. > > The more you articulate your requirement, the more I think this is the > wrong solution and that what you really need to be doing is either using > a load-balancer or using parallel deployment. You also have the option > of the approach Konstantin suggested elsewhere in this thread. > > I'm reluctant to add yet another configuration option for a use case > that can already be met in multiple ways. > > Mark > > > Thanks > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > > >> On 08/11/2013 04:18, Suresh Mathew wrote: > >>> All, > >>> Can we add a new state to bind the port after the startup is > completed. > >>> > >>> Right now start will start the app after binding to the port. We can > >> delay > >>> the binf after connector is started using bindOnInit. But this is a > >> little > >>> different. > >>> > >>> StartOnly - Starts The Server and the apps. > >>> Bind - Then Binds it to the Port and the server starts listening > >>> Unbind - Unbinds the port, but keep the server running not listening > >>> Stop- Will Stop(and unbind if bound) the server. > >>> > >>> The usecase for this is instant rollback (which can also be achieved > with > >>> parallel deployment, but within the same process), Two servers will be > >>> running but one will be bound, and if there is a need to rollback to > the > >>> old version, we can unbind this and bind the other. > >>> > >>> This will also help make the best use of the PORT_REUSE of the latest > >> 3.9.0 > >>> linux kernel feature. > >>> > >>> Does that make any sense? > >> > >> It does, but I think I'd implement it a different way. A flag could be > >> added to the Service to decouple the init() and start() of the > >> connectors. They could then be started and stoped as required via JMX. > >> Stopping the Service would always stop and attached connectors. > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
Re: Late Binding
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2013/11/11 Suresh Mathew : > > Got it Konstantin, Thank you... But stopping and starting would mean that > > we spend time in between and wont be able to instance switch?. > > > > >>You meant s/instance/instant/ ? > > I meant instant. Typo..My bad.. > > >>Starting from a new connector and starting a previously stopped > >>connector needs exactly the same time. > > >>Stopping a previously started connector requires some time, but when > >>it is not under active usage it should stop fast. Anyway you can stop > >>it at any time before the actual start up. > > I got it. Let me try the connector approach and get back to you. Thanks for the suggestion. > >>Top-posting is bad. > >>http://tomcat.apache.org/lists.html#tomcat-users > >>-> "6.". > Thanks for pointing this out. > > > >> Best regards, > >> Konstantin Kolinko > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
Re: Late Binding
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Suresh Mathew wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Konstantin Kolinko < > knst.koli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2013/11/11 Suresh Mathew : >> > Got it Konstantin, Thank you... But stopping and starting would mean >> that >> > we spend time in between and wont be able to instance switch?. >> > >> >> >>You meant s/instance/instant/ ? >> > > >> >>>I meant instant. Typo..My bad.. > > Mark,Konstantin, We got it working by not starting the connector and later using JMX to start it. Thank you very much. Would it be something you would consider to be added to the code base?. > > >> >>Starting from a new connector and starting a previously stopped >> >>connector needs exactly the same time. >> >> >>Stopping a previously started connector requires some time, but when >> >>it is not under active usage it should stop fast. Anyway you can stop >> >>it at any time before the actual start up. >> >> >>>I got it. Let me try the connector approach and get back to you. > Thanks for the suggestion. > > >> >>Top-posting is bad. >> >>http://tomcat.apache.org/lists.html#tomcat-users "6.". >> > > >>>Thanks for pointing this out. > >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Konstantin Kolinko >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >> >
