On 30/05/14 05:26, Arun Gupta wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jason T. Greene
<jgreene(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 28, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Arun Gupta <arun.gupta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW I've been using port hopping to show session replication, without
>> any LB in the front. Does that matter ?
>
> Did you ever get help on this?
Nope.
Sorry, I was on PTO so I missed the continuation of your thread.
> I would double check that you can see replication events
happening, perhaps it's still a network issue.
What log messages am I looking for ?
You are looking for a message that you have a new cluster view that has
2 members, such as:
17:38:48,459 INFO
[org.infinispan.remoting.transport.jgroups.JGroupsTransport]
(ServerService Thread Pool -- 55) ISPN000094: Received new cluster view:
[x220/web|1] (2) [x220/web, node2/web]
> Also you might want to verify your session cookie is actually
matching both locations. You might have two different sessions.
The session ids are indeed different. Just pushed out the latest blog
in this series at:
http://blog.arungupta.me/2014/05/wildfly-managed-domain-raspberrypi-techt...
The session id are shown towards the end in screen snapshots, and are
indeed different.
This is a common mistake. You need to think about how HTTP cookies work
in the browser. If you create a session you are receiving a cookie, the
browser is going to send that cookie that identifies that session only
for the same *domain* (whole RFC and details here
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#page-16 ).
Given your setup, the domains are 10.0.0.27 and 10.0.0.28, respectively.
That means the domain is different and cookies will *not* be sent and
thus a new session will be created.
If you were to use port offsetting it's a whole different story, same as
when you are switching from HTTP/80 to HTTPS/443 you keep your session
(watch out for secure cookies though).
To test, you either need to spoof the cookie (e.g. in the WF testsuite
we are using a HTTP client that overrides the domain matching logic to
be relaxed) or use a loadbalancer like mod_proxy or mod_cluster and then
the domain will be the address of the loadbalancer.
So what you are seeing is correct and expected behavior.
Cheers,
Rado