Rainer Jung wrote:
[...]
What remains for me is your suggestion, that the error is not a fatal
one, since there are other balanced workers left. We could include such
a check in the startup code, although I'm not really convinced, that
your problem is a good reason for this.
I'm open to more argumntation and suggestions :)
Argumentation #1 against a change in logic:
The OP argues that one single unresolvable balanced worker should not
stop the other 4 from working, hence that the balancer should start
anyway, since 80% of the capacity is still available. It sounds
reasonable in principle.
But what if there are only 2 balanced workers in total, of which one is
unresolvable at start ? would it be normal to start with only one
balanced worker available anyway ?
If not, then where's the limit of "acceptable" ?
Argumentation #2 against a change in logic:
Suppose the balancer would start, with the resolved workers only.
Suppose the resolving problem comes from a typo, not the fact that the
given host is temporarily out of the DNS system, but a definite
non-existing host. It will not be retried, so there will never be
another error/warning message. The host itself may be ok and respond to
pings etc.., it will just never be hit by Apache's mod_jk, so this would
be a very quiet error.
How is the sysadmin going to figure out that there is, basically, a
problem ?
Argumentation for a change in logging:
It would be clearer if the error message stated explicitly that "the
balancer worker was not started due to a /configuration/ error, see
above message(s)".
But then, if even I could figure it out from the existing error message,
then just about everyone should be able to.
And what would be the use of the likes of me, if everything was clear ?
;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
