1 Understood, it was just to get some ballpark indication
2 Surely then the new session would be balanced to the faster machine,
and I would see more activity on them.
3 That would explain everything :(
Would a move to mod_jk2 be of any use, or should I get someone to put
their hand in their pocket and upgrade the other two boxes
Thanks for the reply.
Lee
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Ralph Einfeldt wrote:
>
> 1. mod_jk doesn't balance the load on the base of
> packets.
>
> 2. mod_jk works with sticky sessions so only new sessions
> are balanced. I belief but am not shure that it's just
> round robin.
>
> 3. Bill Barker claims that the load balancing is broken
> as the instances of mod_jk don't know the load of each
> other. So mod_jk will balance to some extend but not as
> good as it could/should.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tomcat@(protected)]
> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:37 PM
> > To: tomcat-user@(protected)
> > Subject: mod_jk lbfactor strangeness
> >
> > I've an apache servers with 4 backend app servers and using mod_jk to
> > balance the load over them.
> >
> > Two of the machines are a fair bit quicker than the other
> > two, so I've adjusted the weighting with lbfactor
> >
> > app1 (slow) = lbfactor=100
> > app2 (slow) = lbfactor=100
> > app3 (fast) = lbfactor=150
> > app4 (fast) = lbfactor=150
> >
> > Yet what I see is that app2 and app3 get most of the load?
> >
> > I've checked this with snoop(tcpdump) and counted the packets to the
> > various app servers. And app2 and app3 defiantly seems to be getting
> > more work. I've checked my host file and workers.properties and all
> > seems right.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
