Yes, that's the general idea. In your example the worker1 thread-pool would be in the serviceengine.xml file on server 1, and the worker2 thread-pool would be there on server 2.
-David
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Brett Palmer wrote:
> I discovered some posting on this subject where users were setting up
> different service "ThreadPools" to handle specific requests. Is this still
> the preferred approach to assigning jobs to specific application servers?
>
> For Example we could configure our service engine to have a worker1 pool for
> app server 1 and worker2 pool for app server 2:
>
> <thread-pool send-to-pool="worker1"
> purge-job-days="4"
> failed-retry-min="3"
> ttl="18000000"
> wait-millis="750"
> jobs="10"
> min-threads="5"
> max-threads="15"
> poll-enabled="true"
> poll-db-millis="20000">
> <run-from-pool name="worker1"/>
> </thread-pool>
>
> <thread-pool send-to-pool="worker2"
> purge-job-days="4"
> failed-retry-min="3"
> ttl="18000000"
> wait-millis="750"
> jobs="10"
> min-threads="5"
> max-threads="15"
> poll-enabled="true"
> poll-db-millis="20000">
> <run-from-pool name="worker2"/>
> </thread-pool>
>
>
> Brett
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Brett Palmer <
[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> We run multiple ofbiz application servers against the same ofbiz database.
>> We would like to have specific application servers execute scheduled batch
>> services through the JobSandbox. For example, server 1 executes service 1,
>> server 2 executes service 2, etc.
>>
>> The default behavior is that each application server polls the JobSandbox
>> for jobs that need to be serviced and the assignment of the job is
>> completely random.
>>
>> Is there a way to assign jobs to servers and if so what is the recommended
>> approach?
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
Locked
