mod_webapp has been orphaned.
mod_jk JK2 is a new codebase that is still considered beta.
mod_jk 1.2 with Ajp13 has been relatively stable for a while.
I use this combination with Apache 1.3.26 on both Solaris 7
and Solaris 8 on sparc for production systems using Tomcat 4.1.12.
IHMO, mod_jk 1.2 is currently the best choice for production.
Regards,
Glenn
Hannu Kivimäki wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I'm updating from Tomcat 4.0.2 to 4.1.12 and decided to
> upgrade the Tomcat connector as well. I've had some problems
> with mod_webapp before, and as Tomcat docs recommend mod_jk2
> over deprecated mod_jk, I chose JK2. I'm running Tomcat 4.1.12 and
> Apache 1.13.26 on Solaris 8, and having hard time trying to get
> mod_jk2 to work with Apache.
>
> I'm not a C-programmer, so makefiles, compiler settings, linkers etc.
> are bit of a mystery to me. However, this is what I have done:
>
> Compile mod_jk2 (2.0.0 / 2.0.1) with gcc 3.2:
>
> [root@solaris native2]# setenv CC "/usr/local/bin/gcc"
> [root@solaris native2]# setenv CFLAGS "-DBSD_COMP -fPIC"
> [root@solaris native2]# chmod u+x buildconf.sh
> [root@solaris native2]# ./buildconf.sh
> [root@solaris native2]# ./configure --with-apxs=/opt/apache/bin/apxs
> --with-tomcat41=/opt/jakarta-tomcat-4.1.12
> [root@solaris native2]# make
> [root@solaris native2]# cd ../build/jk2/apache13
> [root@solaris apache13]# cp mod_jk2.so /opt/apache/libexec
>
> Make will fail if I remove either of the compiler flags... not sure
> what they do, required a lot of Google searches (and some trial & error)
> to get even this far. Maybe I've done something wrong here?
>
> Then I configured Apache and Tomcat to use mod_jk2 (workers2.properties,
> jk2.properties). Everything seems to be in place, but when I try to
> start Apache, it fails with a segmentation fault.
>
> Last lines of jk2.log:
> [Tue Oct 08 08:50:08 2002] (debug) [jk_shm.c (345)]: shm.init():
> file=/opt/apache/logs/jk2.shm size=1048576
> [Tue Oct 08 08:50:08 2002] (debug) [jk_shm.c (257)]: shm.create(): file
> open /opt/apache/logs/jk2.shm 1048576 1048576
> [Tue Oct 08 08:50:08 2002] (debug) [jk_shm.c (365)]: shm.create(): shm
> created 0xfe300000
>
> Last lines of truss output:
> 20309: open("/opt/apache/logs/jk2.shm", O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0777) = 3
> 20309: stat("/opt/apache/logs/jk2.shm", 0xFFBEF970) = 0
> 20309: d=0x02200005 i=329401 m=0100755 l=1 u=0 g=1 sz=1048576
> 20309: at = Oct 8 11:50:08 EEST 2002 [ 1034067008 ]
> 20309: mt = Oct 8 11:48:24 EEST 2002 [ 1034066904 ]
> 20309: ct = Oct 8 11:48:24 EEST 2002 [ 1034066904 ]
> 20309: bsz=8192 blks=2064 fs=ufs
> 20309: time() = 1034067008
> 20309: write(5, " [ T u e O c t 0 8 ".., 119) = 119
> 20309: mmap(0x00000000, 1048576, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, 3,
> 0) = 0xFE300000
> 20309: close(3) = 0
> 20309: time() = 1034067008
> 20309: write(5, " [ T u e O c t 0 8 ".., 91) = 91
> 20309: time() = 1034067008
> 20309: Incurred fault #6, FLTBOUNDS %pc = 0xFF1B3144
> 20309: siginfo: SIGSEGV SEGV_MAPERR addr=0x00000000
> 20309: Received signal #11, SIGSEGV [default]
> 20309: siginfo: SIGSEGV SEGV_MAPERR addr=0x00000000
>
> And some debugger info from the core dump:
> > 0xFF1B3144/i
> libc.so.1`strlen+0x80: ld [%o1], %o2
>
>
> Any suggestions? Should I just stick with mod_webapp?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hannu Kivimaki
>
>
> --
> 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]>
