mod_jk and IPV_6

2009-01-20 Thread Dominik Pospisil
Hello, are there any plans to incorporate fix for https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43968 ? Seems that the issue was not fixed in jk-1.2.27. Thanks, Dominik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.a

Re: mod_jk maintenance, recovery

2008-01-21 Thread Dominik Pospisil
Rainer, thanks for valuable info. >> Let's see, if this matches your experience: assuming recovery_options=0, > the request should be retried on other lb member workers (if such exist > and are OK), unless it's a POST and the POST body is bigger than 8186 > bytes and more than the first 8186 bytes

Re: mod_jk maintenance, recovery

2008-01-15 Thread Dominik Pospisil
> Indeed. It would be OK to return 503, for requests, that already have > been received by the first node, but not returned yet. New requests That's the case. All errors I am getting are from requests which were allready in processing by failing node. Why it is OK to return 503 for such requests?

Re: mod_jk maintenance, recovery

2008-01-11 Thread Dominik Pospisil
Hi Rainer, thanks a lot for prompt response. > Dominik Pospisil wrote: > > Hello, > > I am having following problem with following failover test scenario. > > > > Cluster setup: > > - 1 apache load balancer > > - 2 nodes with equal LB factor > > -

mod_jk maintenance, recovery

2008-01-11 Thread Dominik Pospisil
Hello, I am having following problem with following failover test scenario. Cluster setup: - 1 apache load balancer - 2 nodes with equal LB factor - sticky session turned on - Apache/2.0.52, mod_jk/1.2.26 Test scenario: 1. start 1st node 2. start load driver 3. start 2nd node 4. wait for state tr