-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 János,
On 3/20/2009 1:48 PM, János Löbb wrote: > <Connector port="8280" protocol="HTTP/1.1" > connectionTimeout="20000" > redirectPort="8643" /> > <Connector port="8209" protocol="AJP/1.3" redirectPort="8643" /> [snip] > ProxyRequests Off > <Proxy balancer://pathCluster> > BalancerMember http://bml0039.yalepath.org loadfactor=10 > BalancerMember http://bml0073.yalepath.org loadfactor=10 Note that you have configured your Tomcat to listen for HTTP on port 8280, but your <Proxy> configuration points to port 80. This isn't going to work. > Here is the workers.property file: > > <snip> > bml0073:local janos$ cat apache2/conf/workers.properties > worker.list = lb,jkstatus This looks like workers.properties, which is a mod_jk thing. You are using mod_proxy_http. This isn't going to work for two reasons: 1. mod_proxy_http uses HTTP as the protocol and mod_jk uses AJP 2. mod_proxy_http doesn't read workers.properties, so the file is not relevant > Similar workers.properies on the XP machine but the hosts are logically > different If your Windows XP machine runs Tomcat only, then the presence of a workers.properties file is not relevant. > Well, this setup worked in December. Very unlikely. > The request from the reverse proxy did go to the XP machine: > Here are the log entries from the access log: > > <snip> > 10.84.2.195 - - [20/Mar/2009:12:09:49 -0400] "GET /CassetteLabeler > HTTP/1.1" 302 - > </snip> Wait... are you running 3 copies of Apache httpd? No wonder there's tons and tons configuration. You only need one single httpd instance: the one doing the load-balancing. Configure /all/ of the TC instances that are part of the balancing setup in that one httpd. What you've done is set up load balancing across two httpd instances that then load-balance to a set of webapp servers. I can only think of a single reason to ever do that (you want lopsided load balancing) but it still doesn't make any sense. Lose the additional httpd instances and simplify your life, man. Then there won't be so much confusion over port numbers, forwarding, proxying, etc. > Here are the entries from mod_jk.log of this XP machine: > > <snip> > [Fri Mar 20 12:09:49.254 2009] [852:1808] [debug] jk_uri_worker_map.c > (682): Attempting to map URI '/CassetteLabeler' from 5 maps Ugh. Okay, so you are using mod_proxy_http for the main httpd and mod_jk from the other ones. That's not confusing at all. I would highly recommend that you simplify your configuration unless you have a real need to complicate it. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknKMrUACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBjrACgvAP1zKwFa2wYlx7O4cvPx7DC JhAAoLd4B7HnrjSX+8f7IcoivwJcpiDs =/8Rs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
