 | 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 Jeanfrancois Arcand
Back
BTW you can get the nightly build here:
http://cvs.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-5 (See http://cat-5.ora-code.com)/nightly/
Instead of building tomcat from scratch :-)
-- Jeanfrancois
jean-philippe.belanger@(protected) wrote:
> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
|
|
|
