gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
Patch for JK2 docs about load balanceing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Reso
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
Patch for JK2 docs about load balanceing.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-14 21:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=11243)
The edited file
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
Patch for JK2 docs about load balanceing.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-14 21:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=11242)
Diff of my changes
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
Patch for JK2 docs about load balanceing.
Summary: Patch for JK2 docs about load balanceing.
Product: Tomcat 4
Version: 4.1.29
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT/2K
Status: NEW
Severity: Enhan
I am trying to figure out this JK2 load balancing code and fix the docs.
I need some help verifying some of the coding decisions that have been
made.
Ok, as I dig deeper into the code, I discover the following:
Both worker:AJP13 and channel.socket can have both the level and
lb_factor parameters
T
Can anyone check this in?
Eugene Gluzberg wrote:
> Just some additional installation info.
>
>
>
>
> Index: jk/xdocs/jk2/configweb.xml
> ===
> RCS file: /hom
Just some additional installation info.
Index: jk/xdocs/jk2/configweb.xml
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/xdocs/jk2/configweb.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -c -r1.6 configweb.xml
*** jk/xdocs/jk2/conf
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >I documented 2 properties, to be used to override the default
> >when new protocols/apis are added:
> >
> > channel.socket.local.protocol=ajp13 ( it could be WARP, or IIOP or RPC )
>
> ok, that's what I looked for
>
> > channel.socket.local.api=ajp13 (
>> channel.socket.local.type=ajp13 ?
>
>No :-)
>
>The only protocol that we support in Jk at this moment is the
>ajp13 protocol ( lb, status, etc are workers, but not protocols ),
>so it is the default and users don't have to set it explicitely.
>
>I documented 2 properties, to be used to override
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >channel.socket.local.port=8009
> >channel.socket.local.lbfactor=1
> >channel.socket.local.secretkey=...
>
> good, a channel indicate transport,
> a worker should be a layer upper, it use a channel
> for transport and channel could be virtual (ie lb)
>What the user most define are the communication channels ( host, port,
>etc ). It is far cleaner to set the properties on the channel and use
>defaults for the handler.
>
>Henri - is this solution acceptable ?
>
>That means:
>
>channel.socket.local.port=8009
>channel.socket.local.lbfactor=1
>ch
Hi,
I just checked in 2 docs for jk2, one describing the general model and one
start of the config manual.
It's obviously subject to change.
I think I found a solution to address Henri's comments about
worker/channel configuration - that is to reverse things.
"Worker" is an extremely confus
12 matches
Mail list logo