ok, I'll look into this this week.
Filip
Peter Rossbach wrote:
Hey,
the problem is arround the keep a live handling code and the auto
reconnect at SimpleTcpCluster.
One thread can say: I drop the connection and open new one, then
start transfer message and wait for ack.
Other thread comes a
Thanks,
and I hope Filip has time to review and test it.
Peter.
PS: I am now start to port the fix to my changed 5.5.10 code.
Remy Maucherat schrieb:
Peter Rossbach wrote:
I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389
W
Peter Rossbach wrote:
I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389
Wow, it's great you could come up with a patch for 5.5.9 so quickly :)
Rémy
-
To uns
Hi,
I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389
Vote for stable 5.5.9 [X]
All clustering user can extract the fix pack and all is working well. :-)
Peter
Yoav Shapira schrieb:
Hi,
Ok, this give me and Filip time for
I voted it stable but I'm not using clustering support :(
On Apr 9, 2005 8:54 PM, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>>Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
> >>>the 5.5.10 codebase.
> >>>I also package my fixes to the 5.5
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
the 5.5.10 codebase.
I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug
report..
I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he
gets married (congratulations
Hi,
> > Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review
> > the 5.5.10 codebase.
> > I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug
> > report..
>
> I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he
> gets married (congratulati
Peter Rossbach wrote:
I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering.
:(
So it's safe to assume all 5.5 builds have some kind of issues with the
clustering then, probably due to lack of actual production testing.
>>Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible
(mea
I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering.
>>Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible
(meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If
so, I think we >>need to forget about clustering stability for now, and
mention that it is experim
Peter Rossbach wrote:
My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a
separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta.
Given the state of HEAD, and given some the 5.5.7 issues, I would like
5.5.9 to be stable. This means we would need a way to fix 5.5.9 without
new maj
Congratulation, too!
Peter
Yoav Shapira schrieb:
Hi,
The problem is that clustering only patches in HEAD may pick up
incompatible changes, like the Session.getId patch. We also shouldn't do
a new 5.5.10 tag based on HEAD, as it would pick up the risky stuff.
Maybe one solution would be to do a
Hey,
the problem is arround the keep a live handling code and the auto
reconnect at SimpleTcpCluster.
One thread can say: I drop the connection and open new one, then
start transfer message and wait for ack.
Other thread comes and see ups. the connection is not there. ( Arrg
missing sychro
Congratulation !
> I'll be incommunicado from the 14th through the 20th or so: I'm getting
> married on the 17th ;)
>
> Yoav Shapira
> System Design and Management Fellow
> MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
> Cambridge, MA USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Hi,
> The problem is that clustering only patches in HEAD may pick up
> incompatible changes, like the Session.getId patch. We also shouldn't do
> a new 5.5.10 tag based on HEAD, as it would pick up the risky stuff.
>
> Maybe one solution would be to do a new 5.5.9 build, and reverting
> clusteri
Hi Peter, what's up with the cluster code?
I will have some time to load test and debug any problems you might
have, also, do you have problems on the synced-pooled setting, or on all
connectors?
Filip
Peter Rossbach wrote:
Hey,
[X] Stable -- good build (Normal Tomcat)
[X] unstable and buggy clu
Peter Rossbach wrote:
Hey,
[X] Stable -- good build (Normal Tomcat)
[X] unstable and buggy cluster code, Argg!
The normal Tomcat features are very stable on my tests. But my cluster
code refactorings has
drop the clustering. I have test the cluster under load this week and
find some very bad bug
Hey,
[X] Stable -- good build (Normal Tomcat)
[X] unstable and buggy cluster code, Argg!
The normal Tomcat features are very stable on my tests. But my cluster
code refactorings has
drop the clustering. I have test the cluster under load this week and
find some very bad bugs :-(
- Complete clu
Yoav Shapira wrote:
[X] Stable -- good build
The build looks good to me.
I would say it passes the TCK test, as Jan said the TCK status was still
ok after making the nearly last minute getId change (which got
reverted). Of course, I could be wrong.
Rémy
--
>From what I could see in my first devel site (the first not using a
Tomcat 3.3.2), it seems stable.
On Apr 6, 2005 1:25 PM, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have
> had time to test/use it. We're still waiting fo
Hi,
Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have
had time to test/use it. We're still waiting for the TCK results, but let's
hear your opinion:
[ ] Stable -- good build
[ ] Beta -- minor bad stuff: what is it?
[ ] Alpha -- something serious is wrong: what is it?
The
20 matches
Mail list logo
