 | Mailing List | | Home | | Forum Home | | JBoss - Java Application Server | | Struts - A MVC web framework | | Tomcat - JSP/Servlet container | | iText - An open source PDF Java Library | | JDOM - JDOM XML Parser | | J2EE - A mailing list for Java(tm) 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition | | J2EE Pattern - An interest list for Sun Java Center J2EE Pattern Catalog | | Servlet - A mailing list for discussion about Sun Microsystem's Java Servlet API Technology | | JSP - A mailing list about Java Server Pages specification and reference | |
Struts & Hibernate
|
|
|
| | | WAS: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication | WAS: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication 2004-01-12 - By jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)
Back
That sounds good.
I'll get the CVS head and check this out. We won't really put much
stress on those server for a while, but as long as the behavior is the
same. I buy! :)
btw: is there a pool config or is it hardcoded for now?
Thanks again Filip.
Jean-Philippe Belanger
Filip Hanik wrote:
>Steve and Jean-Philippe,
>I've been working on some more replication stuff and made a major change
>that I think you might want to use.
>I have added a third configuration to the parameter replicationMode,
>
>replicationMode="pooled"
>
>With this setting it still is synchronized replication, but uses a pool of
>sockets to replicate the data.
>It improves performance a lot. Try it out, and let me know how it works for
>you
>You will notice the improvement under load.
>
>of course, get latest from cvs first
>
>Filip
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:05 PM
>To: 'Tomcat Users List'
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>
>
>Hrmmm, perhaps I should reboot using the non-SMP kernel and try it. I'll
>have to do that when I get back to the servers.
>
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 2:04 PM
>To: 'Tomcat Users List'
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>uname -a
>machine #1) Linux draco 2.4.20-8smp #1 SMP Thu Mar 13 17:45:54 EST 2003 i686
>i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>machine #2) Linux scorpio 2.4.20-8smp #1 SMP Thu Mar 13 17:45:54 EST 2003
>i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
>
>java -version:
>java version "1.4.2_03"
>Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_03-b02)
>Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2_03-b02, mixed mode)
>
>same on both
>
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Filip Hanik [mailto:devlists@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:56 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>[root@(protected) bin]# uname -a
>Linux rh9 2.4.20-8 #1 Thu Mar 13 17:54:28 EST 2003 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
>[root@(protected) bin]# java -version
>java version "1.4.2_03"
>Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_03-b02)
>Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2_03-b02, mixed mode)
>
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:05 AM
>To: 'Tomcat Users List'
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>sun JDK 1.4.2 for Linux
>Kernel 2.4.20-8smp
>Tomcat 5.0.16 with catalina-cluster.jar from CVS head
>
>Hrmmm....are yours SMP servers? Could be something odd with synch if that is
>the case.
>
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Filip Hanik [mailto:devlists@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:01 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>interesting, mine doesn't work at all unless I set the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL
>
>what VM (version and name) are you using?
>
>Filip
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:59 AM
>To: 'Tomcat Users List'
>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>
>Now that's really very strange. I am running RH9 and everything seems to go
>through just fine.
>
>
>-- --Original Message-- --
>From: jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)
>[mailto:jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)]
>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:56 PM
>To: Tomcat Users List
>Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>
>
>The replication message ACK never get back to the sender.
>So my webpages never loads without that flag.
>
>I think it is only needed under REDHAT 9.
>
>Jean-Philippe B�langer
>
>Steve Nelson wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't seem to need the ld_assume_kernel thing. What are the symptoms when
>>it is required?
>>
>>
>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>From: jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)
>>[mailto:jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)]
>>Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:33 PM
>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>
>>
>>Just tried the CVS head and everything works with any CPU going crazy!
>>only if ld_assume_kernel is set to 2.4
>>
>>One more question for you Filip, is the useDirtyFlag working at all? It
>>seams like even if it's set to true, the whole session gets replicated
>>after each request. :(
>>
>>Jean-Philippe
>>
>>jean-philippe.belanger@(protected) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hurray for Fillip! :)
>>>
>>>I'll get the CVS head for the module today and test this out.
>>>Happy to see that it got fixed that quickly!
>>>
>>>Thanks again and I'll let you know how it goes
>>>
>>>Jean-Philippe
>>>
>>>Filip Hanik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jean-Philippe and Steve,
>>>>I fixed the bug, and tried replication on RH9. Immediately it didn't
>>>>work.
>>>>The problem is that when RH9 tries to write the ACK back to the NIO
>>>>socket,
>>>>it never reaches the other node. and times out after a long time.
>>>>
>>>>I set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 and it started to work
>>>>
>>>>Filip
>>>>
>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>From: Filip Hanik [mailto:devlists@(protected)]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:43 PM
>>>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ok guys,
>>>>good news. The 100% cpu is totally my fault. I messed up on that one.
>>>>I was registering OP_WRITE as an interest
>>>>this is not good :)
>>>>checking in the working code in 15 min, some more regression tests
>>>>Filip
>>>>
>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>From: Filip Hanik [mailto:devlists@(protected)]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 2:54 PM
>>>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>another code change was, that I am now accepting keys for OP_READ and
>>>>OP_WRITE. before it was only OP_READ,
>>>>but for synchronous replication I need both.
>>>>
>>>>this is good info, I just got RH9 installed. will be trying it out
>>>>this and
>>>>next week.
>>>>
>>>>Filip
>>>>
>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>From: jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)
>>>>[mailto:jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:46 AM
>>>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only changes in the ReplicationListener class is the try catch that
>>>>was added.
>>>>
>>>>the code logic is the same. Weird enough. So it's probably elsewhere
>>>>that something changed in the state of the SelectionKey.
>>>>
>>>>Jean-Philippe B�langer
>>>>
>>>>Steve Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was just about to try this actually. I found through googling alot of
>>>>>people
>>>>>having problems with select with 1.4 and NIO with Redhat 9. They were
>>>>>actually
>>>>>experiencing crashes though.
>>>>>
>>>>>To verify your results I just put a Thread.Sleep(1); where you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>suggested and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I also see the jump in performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Something must have changed in ReplicationListener that causes this
>>>>>because
>>>>>the 5.0.16
>>>>>version doesn't seem to have the problem. I'll see if I can figure
>>>>>it out
>>>>>when I get back to where I can diff the files.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>>From: jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)
>>>>>[mailto:jean-philippe.belanger@(protected)]
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:25 PM
>>>>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>>Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>More content for you Filip.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've checked and followed the code of the listen event in
>>>>>ReplicationListener.java
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's what happening:
>>>>>
>>>>>selector.select(timeout) -> return immediatly with one SelectorKey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>available
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That key is not Acceptable and not Readable so it immediatly skip those
>>>>>IFs and loops back to the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've put traces and this is executed once every millisecond hence the
>>>>>100% load on the server.
>>>>>Just to make sure, I've put a Thread.sleep(10) at the end of the loop
>>>>>and the CPU dropped back to 0% and the replication still worked nicely
>>>>>but probably a little slower since the wait of 10ms.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know much about those NIO packages but seams like the
>>>>>select(timeout) method shouldn't return a SelectorKey of that state.
>>>>>with any waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me know what you can dig from those.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jean-Philippe B�langer
>>>>>
>>>>>jean-philippe.belanger@(protected) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Filip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I did some profiling of 40mins of tomcat with and without a 2nd node
>>>>>>up. here are the results with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>-Xrunhprof:cpu=samples,thread=y,file=/u01/portal/java.hprof.txt,depth=10:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Those number are cpu=times and not samples since the later one freezes
>>>>>>on my systems.
>>>>>>So that list shows the time spent in each methods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Major difference the some call to the sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper
>>>>>>class. I don't know much about those NIOs packages but 819000 call in
>>>>>>40 mins is a lot.
>>>>>>The Socket Interface was called more than twice with 2 hosts than with
>>>>>>a single one. Which seams normal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe this can help.
>>>>>>If you need the complete hprof file I can send them to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 host in cluster:
>>>>>>CPU TIME (ms) BEGIN (total = 19701) Thu Jan 8 10:00:59 2004
>>>>>>rank self accum count trace method
>>>>>>1 11.48% 11.48% 54 85 java.lang.Object 
>>>>>>2 11.46% 22.94% 117 86 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>3 10.95% 33.89% 4115 215 java.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl
>>>>>>4 10.93% 44.81% 4114 224 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>5 10.91% 55.73% 19005 214 sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper.poll0
>>>>>>6 7.37% 63.09% 28 495 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>7 7.24% 70.34% 10 576 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>8 4.57% 74.90% 90 716 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>9 4.48% 79.38% 1 909 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>10 4.48% 83.86% 1 908 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>11 4.48% 88.34% 15 810 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>12 4.47% 92.81% 1 910 java.net.PlainSocketImpl
>>>>>>13 0.71% 93.52% 2 623 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>14 0.56% 94.08% 2 706 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>15 0.38% 94.46% 2 914 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>16 0.24% 94.70% 775 913 java.lang.String
>>>>>>17 0.23% 94.93% 3 475 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>18 0.16% 95.09% 2 472 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>19 0.15% 95.24% 2 595 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>20 0.15% 95.40% 2 586 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>21 0.15% 95.55% 2 703 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>22 0.15% 95.70% 2 476 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>23 0.15% 95.85% 2 692 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>24 0.12% 95.97% 218595 385
>>>>>>java.lang.CharacterDataLatin1.toLowerCase
>>>>>>25 0.12% 96.09% 218595 408 java.lang.Character
>>>>>>26 0.11% 96.20% 218595 433
>>>>>>java.lang.CharacterDataLatin1.getProperties
>>>>>>27 0.10% 96.30% 210925 389 java.lang.String
>>>>>>28 0.08% 96.38% 157259 387 java.lang.String
>>>>>>29 0.08% 96.46% 1 646 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>30 0.08% 96.53% 1 634 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>31 0.08% 96.61% 1 903 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>32 0.08% 96.69% 1 714 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>33 0.08% 96.76% 1 811 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>34 0.08% 96.84% 1 715 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2 hosts:
>>>>>>CPU TIME (ms) BEGIN (total = 37247) Thu Jan 8 11:01:28 2004
>>>>>>rank self accum count trace method
>>>>>>1 9.56% 9.56% 52 85 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>2 9.56% 19.12% 29 86 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>3 9.30% 28.43% 3 267 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>4 9.25% 37.68% 6644 224 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>5 9.23% 46.91% 13116 215 java.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl
>>>>>>6 7.67% 54.58% 3 266 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>7 5.90% 60.47% 39 847 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>8 5.76% 66.24% 12 503 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>9 3.90% 70.14% 145 975 java.lang.Thread
>>>>>>10 3.90% 74.04% 1 1174 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>11 3.90% 77.94% 1 1173 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>12 3.90% 81.84% 25 973 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>13 3.90% 85.74% 1 1175 java.net.PlainSocketImpl
>>>>>>14 3.88% 89.62% 819692 214 sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper.poll0
>>>>>>15 0.75% 90.37% 2 958 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>16 0.28% 90.65% 2 457 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>17 0.26% 90.91% 2 1181 java.lang.Object
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Filip Hanik wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll try to get an instance going today. Will let you know how it
>>>>>>>goes
>>>>>>>also, try asynchronous replication, does it still go to 100%?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Filip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>>>>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:08 PM
>>>>>>>To: 'Tomcat Users List'
>>>>>>>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Okay, did that got this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BEGIN TO RECEIVE
>>>>>>>SENT:Default 1
>>>>>>>RECEIVED:Default 1 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555
>>>>>>>SENT:Default 2
>>>>>>>BEGIN TO RECEIVE
>>>>>>>RECEIVED:Default 2 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555
>>>>>>>SENT:Default 3
>>>>>>>BEGIN TO RECEIVE
>>>>>>>RECEIVED:Default 3 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555
>>>>>>>SENT:Default 4
>>>>>>>BEGIN TO RECEIVE
>>>>>>>RECEIVED:Default 4 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*shrug*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW It didn't go to 100% CPU ute before I started using the code from
>>>>>>>CVS.
>>>>>>>Of course the Manager would almost always timeout before it would
>>>>>>>recieve
>>>>>>>the message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now it gets the message right away, but maxes my machine out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>>>>From: Filip Hanik [mailto:devlists@(protected)]
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:58 PM
>>>>>>>To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>>>>Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>100% cpu can mean that you have a multicast problem, try to run
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>java -cp tomcat-replication.jar MCaster
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>download the jar from http://cvs.apache.org/~fhanik/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Filip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>>>>>>From: Steve Nelson [mailto:Steve.Nelson@(protected)]
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:51 AM
>>>>>>>To: 'tomcat-user@(protected)'
>>>>>>>Subject: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I was having random problems with clustering when starting up. Mostly
>>>>>>>it had
>>>>>>>to do with Timing out
>>>>>>>when the manager was starting up. I built the CVS version and it
>>>>>>>solved that
>>>>>>>problem. But it has caused
>>>>>>>some serious performance problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First a little background.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have 2 servers, dual 300mhz cpq proliants, both running Redhat - 9,
>>>>>>>Tomcat
>>>>>>>5.0.16 (with catalina-cluster.jar build from cvs) The multicast
>>>>>>>packets are
>>>>>>>restricted to a crossover link between the servers. There are 3 hosts
>>>>>>>in the
>>>>>>>server.xml, all with clustering set up. They all function just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But.....the cpu's spikes up to 100% if I start up both servers. I
>>>>>>>know this
>>>>>>>didn't happen without the new catalina-cluster.jar. If I shut down 1
>>>>>>>server
>>>>>>>(doesn't matter which) everything returns to normal. But when both
>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>running both servers are at 100% CPU. I am trying to profile it now,
>>>>>>>but I
>>>>>>>figured if someone has already experienced this they could save me
>>>>>>>some
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, and there isn't anything relevant in my logs. It's not throwing
>>>>>>>millions
>>>>>>>of errors or something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Steve Nelson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>>>>>>>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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
>>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Jean-Philippe B�langer
>>>>(514)228-8800 ext 3060
>>>>111 Duke
>>>>CGI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>>>>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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>>>>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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Jean-Philippe B�langer
>(514)228-8800 ext 3060
>111 Duke
>CGI
>
>
>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>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)
>
>
>-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
>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)
>
>
>
>
--
Jean-Philippe B�langer
(514)228-8800 ext 3060
111 Duke
CGI
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
|
|
|
