Nancy,
On 10/9/20 16:12, BOSECKER Nancy wrote:
> I have a servlet that loads when Tomcat is started. It's loaded from xml:
> privileged="true"
> antiResourceLocking="false"
> unpackWAR="true"
> swallowOutput="false">
>
>
> There isn't anything special about t
Tim,
On 10/9/20 02:18, Tim N wrote:
>> The second seems to the result of a cluster message received which seems
>> odd on the machine where the session is being created
I was going to ask about that registration process. It looks like each
machine on the cluster registers every machine in the clu
Hi-
I have a servlet that loads when Tomcat is started. It's loaded from xml:
There isn't anything special about this particular one, but I've noticed that
Tomcat fails to load it sporadically with:
2020-10-09 13:04:40,250 [org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext startInternal
] SEVERE
On 10/9/20 11:49 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 09/10/2020 16:38, marc.davenp...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm trying to upgrade from 9.0.35 to 9.0.38. I know that explicit
module definitions were added between .37 & .38. I'm just trying to
shake out the changes needed on our end to use it. I
On 09/10/2020 16:38, marc.davenp...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm trying to upgrade from 9.0.35 to 9.0.38. I know that explicit
> module definitions were added between .37 & .38. I'm just trying to
> shake out the changes needed on our end to use it. It's my tentative
> grasp on proper
Hello all,
I'm trying to upgrade from 9.0.35 to 9.0.38. I know that explicit
module definitions were added between .37 & .38. I'm just trying to
shake out the changes needed on our end to use it. It's my tentative
grasp on proper use of modules, but I could use some help. Now when we
are st
On 09/10/2020 12:32, Arshiya Shariff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mark , with the test runs that I performed over clean 9.0.x branch I was not
> able to reproduce this.
Good. But I'd really like to understand why...
> But with 9.0.38 and the jars built from 9.0.x with hash:
> c8ec2d4cde3a31b0e9df9a30e791
Hi Arshiya,
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:33 PM Arshiya Shariff
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mark , with the test runs that I performed over clean 9.0.x branch I was
> not able to reproduce this. But with 9.0.38 and the jars built from 9.0.x
> with hash: c8ec2d4cde3a31b0e9df9a30e7915d77ba725545 , with 700 or 1
Hi,
Mark , with the test runs that I performed over clean 9.0.x branch I was not
able to reproduce this. But with 9.0.38 and the jars built from 9.0.x with
hash: c8ec2d4cde3a31b0e9df9a30e7915d77ba725545 , with 700 or 1000 users
(connections) and on sending 1000 Requests per second (or even le
