Jim Jagielski wrote:
As Mladen said, there is some very prelim discussions regarding
key aspects of these issue on the httpd-dev list. But it is hardly
unique to mod_proxy (mod_dbd could also use a nice robust watchdog
hook implementation).
Correct. The bottom line is like you said to move di
On Aug 28, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Agreed, but this is concerning *both* mod_jk and mod_proxy and I've
been scolded for cross posting...
Well, I would say that both mod_jk and mod_proxy are affected by the
"same phenomenon" but proposed fixes for mod_proxy shouldn't be
discussed
Jess Holle wrote:
Agreed, but this is concerning *both* mod_jk and mod_proxy and I've
been scolded for cross posting...
At the core, I'm looking for 2 things:
1. Something to limit the maximum impact of having many dead
workers under a load balancer on normal requests
* Assu
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. I'd also like to quiet attempts to recover workers from errors
to a lower (and by default unlogged) logging level. The transition
of a worker into an error state should certainly be logged, but
log
On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. I'd also like to quiet attempts to recover workers from errors
to a lower (and by default unlogged) logging level. The transition
of a worker into an error state should certainly be logged, but
logging every time we
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. I'd also like to quiet attempts to recover workers from errors
to a lower (and by default unlogged) logging level. The transition
of a worker into an error state should certainly be logged, but
logging every time we find it to still be in an error sta
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. I'd also like to quiet attempts to recover workers from errors to a
lower (and by default unlogged) logging level. The transition of a
worker into an error state should certainly be logged, but logging every
time we find it to still be in an error state seems to be exces
P.S. I'd also like to quiet attempts to recover workers from errors to a
lower (and by default unlogged) logging level. The transition of a
worker into an error state should certainly be logged, but logging every
time we find it to still be in an error state seems to be excessive --
at least f
Jess Holle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there a means of achieving background-only (or nearly so)
testing of dead workers with mod_jk? That's what I'm looking for
in both jk and mod_proxy_ajp connectors. I guess I was
hoping/assuming
Jess Holle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there a means of achieving background-only (or nearly so)
testing of dead workers with mod_jk? That's what I'm looking for
in both jk and mod_proxy_ajp connectors. I guess I was
hoping/assuming
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there a means of achieving background-only (or nearly so) testing
of dead workers with mod_jk? That's what I'm looking for in both jk
and mod_proxy_ajp connectors. I guess I was hoping/assuming it was
there in mo
Jess Holle wrote:
Add JkWatchdogInterval 60
Also how/where would one specify this for the IIS/Tomcat connector?
[I need such a capability for IIS and Apache 2.2, specifically.]
--
Jess Holle
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there a means of achieving background-only (or nearly so) testing
of dead workers with mod_jk? That's what I'm looking for in both jk
and mod_proxy_ajp connectors. I guess I was hoping/assuming it was
there in mod_jk from reading t
Jess Holle wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there a means of achieving background-only (or nearly so) testing of
dead workers with mod_jk? That's what I'm looking for in both jk and
mod_proxy_ajp connectors. I guess I was hoping/assuming it was there in
mod_jk from reading the docs.
There i
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm quite willing to help, but you're clearly much more familiar with
both mod_jk and APR/MPM than I am, so I suspect I'd just get in the
way except at the testing level.
Well, I plan to create mpm watchdog hook system first.
I'll also create a small call
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm quite willing to help, but you're clearly much more familiar with
both mod_jk and APR/MPM than I am, so I suspect I'd just get in the
way except at the testing level.
Well, I plan to create mpm watchdog hook system first.
I'll also create a small call
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm quite willing to help, but you're clearly much more familiar with
both mod_jk and APR/MPM than I am, so I suspect I'd just get in the way
except at the testing level.
Well, I plan to create mpm watchdog hook system first.
I'll also create a small callback in mod_proxy
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I want to use mod_proxy_balancer to load balance over a set of ports
that potentially have Tomcats running on them.
Unfortunately there will generally be a good number of ports where no
Tomcat is running. Every 'retry' seconds I have a request that takes
Jess Holle wrote:
I want to use mod_proxy_balancer to load balance over a set of ports
that potentially have Tomcats running on them.
Unfortunately there will generally be a good number of ports where no
Tomcat is running. Every 'retry' seconds I have a request that takes
about an extra seco
I want to use mod_proxy_balancer to load balance over a set of ports
that potentially have Tomcats running on them.
Unfortunately there will generally be a good number of ports where no
Tomcat is running. Every 'retry' seconds I have a request that takes
about an extra second for each Tomcat-
20 matches
Mail list logo
