Hi Thank you for your reply - as alway I appreciate. I can understand your point very well and I did dismiss the original complaint as such - a one-off, a minor issue. There is one silly anecdote: assume that you have a heavily shared Apache with a bunch of workers... one day one of the friendly *sharee* decides that he does not need one of his hosts anymore and forgets to tell the server admin. A later restart affects all the services hosted because of this ...how to say it... oversight:-). To get apache up again you probably need to logging physically to the server and vi the config file (some pain).
Rgds Fred Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > fredk2 schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> when you set a load balancer (mod_jk v1.2.26) with 2 workers: >> worker.myWorker.type=lb >> worker.myWorker.balance_workers=tc1Worker, tc2Worker >> >> and one of the worker's host cannot be resolved: >> worker.tc2Worker.host=mytest.mydom.com >> >> Then Apache will not start. >> >> - since the other worker is 'good', should'nt we let apache start with a >> nice error message informing you that one worker could not resolved (done >> today) and jk will disable the worker and let apache start anyway? >> >> - Adding a disable does not fix the issue it seems. Only removing the >> worker from the list does. >> worker.tc2Worker.activation=d > > Yes that's the way it was implemented intentionally. > >> The idea is that if DNS fails to resolve a host (some admin mistake) and >> Apache was restarted automatically for unrelated reasons, it would fail >> to >> come back online without a manual intervention - editing a configuration >> file (which might be a challenge). > > In general I think it's better to not start, if a worker is completely > broken. Yes, in your case it would provide a problem with regular > restarts, but we could argue, that if your DNS is not rock solid, but > your production systems depend on IP address resolution, then you should > either use the IPs in the workers host attribute, or add the few systems > you need to contact from your httpd to your hosts file. Of course that > contradicts the major goals of DNS, but if you want to stick to those > you really need a rock solid DNS (which is not that hard). Admin > failures when managing critical DNS data are really major incidents. > > If we allow unresolvable host names, it's very likely that users will > not notice the resulting error messages during startup. And I think it's > much more likely that people simply put typos into the host names than > the occurence of local DNS failures. > > This seems to be grey area, where there's no obviously best solution. > >> Rgds - Fred > > Regards, > > Rainer > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Apache-fails-to-start-when-.host-does-not-resolve.-tp16422828p16574355.html Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
