Hi, I understand that when it comes to security you do not want to start the service eg. if the certificate is corrupted you do not want the ssl server to start <full stop> or if Apache cannot bind to the hostname then it cannot start, etc... . However, in this case there can be a few reasons why a tomcat server dns entry is removed or decommissionned or dropped. Imagine one apache whith many non-related workers (not just one lb)*. So I understand that one does not want the service to fail during a restart (nitely,automated or by an operator) while you investigate the problem ... It seems to me more acceptable to have a potential performance degradation vs a loss of the whole service.
so +1 on changing the fatal to non-fatal assuming the code change is one line. I take scalability/stability over feature :-) Rgds - Fred awarnier wrote: > > 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 > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JK-1.2.28---load-balancer-worker-fails-on-startup-with-one-worker--down---tp23065939p23099365.html Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
