I'm also very interested in hearing more about Tomcat HA. Speaking about HIGH AVAILABILITY, is linked to reliability and scalabitity.
reliability should be provided by Tomcat core but scalability should be provided by some sorts of software between end-user and Tomcat's core. As I said yesterday, it could be achieved by : - request dispatcher to multiples Tomcat Instance JVM (mod_jk does that and mod_jk2 will push it farther) - tomcat instance datas replications, may be introduced by external APIs like spread or javagroups (javagroups has been used in TC 4.0 but due to its GPL license couldn't be added to Tomcat 4.0) But reliability should cover the full chain : - link between end-user / tomcat - tomcat core - java web application - remote applications / databases (SQL backend, JMS, links to proprietary applications) In my opinion, TC 5.0 should provide a stable core, and offer replication support (via spread/javagroup). Others parts link between end-user and tomcat, should fall in connectors land. Java web applications in on webapp developpers land. Remote Apps / SQL stability depends on SQL JDBC drivers, JMS or proprietary comm layers, and of course on availabity of remote apps/databases. - Henri Gomez ___[_]____ EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 >-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:41 AM >To: 'Tomcat Developers List' >Subject: RE: 5.0 proposal > > >Hi all, > >I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, >and I was >interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was >an option in a >production system. We have been using tomcat 3.2.3 (an out of >date version >I know) and while it performs it very well under a light load, >some strange >things start to happen when our site gets busy the only >solution seems to be >to shut down and restart tomcat (I know that this it not supposed to >required on a regular basis is it ?). I wont bother >describing exactly what >happens because we are using an older version and some of the >issues may >have been resolved, but we do get some unexpected behaviour under high >loads. > >Long and short : as a user of tomcat, i would be far more >appreciative of a >so called "high-availability or hard-edition" than an new >"feature rich" >version. Just because thats of most use (I think) to me though :-) > >-----Original Message----- >From: Arshad Mahmood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 25 June 2002 09:12 >To: Tomcat Developers List >Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Pier Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:49 PM >Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: >> > >> >> That's why counts where not right on my side of the >border... I don't >recall >> >> vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that >I'd prefer to >see >> >> 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than a 4.1 and a 5.0... >> > >> > 4.0 is out of door - the release happened long ago. So did 4.0.1... >4.0.4. >> > >> > 4.1 is getting close - and it should be more stable and better than >4.0.4. >> > And 5.0 should be more stable and better than 4.1 and 3.3. >> > >> > And 6.0 will probably be better than 5.0. >> > >> > If you are interested in maintaining and improving 4.0.4 - just >volunteer >> > as release manager for the branch, you have my +1 on it. >> >> I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% >of the code, >and >> kiddies would start crying their butts off because they >don't have the >> manager application, or JSP support :) >> >> But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a >> Tomcat-HA (high-availability or hard-edition), based on 4.0 >without the >> "crap" in there, and straightening out the request-response model... > >+100! > >As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10 >different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) >this would be >very helpful to me. > >You mentioned a couple of specific things you would like to >do. Would it be >possible for you elaborate a little more. > >Regards, >Arshad > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information, visit http://www.messagelabs.com _____________________________________________________________________ This message from All-Hotels has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit: http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
