DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38332>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38332

           Summary: Documented AJP Connector configuration for pending
                    request queue size in error
           Product: Tomcat 5
           Version: 5.5.9
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.5-doc/config/ajp.html
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Connector:AJP
        AssignedTo: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
        ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


In configuring my AJP13 connector between Tomcat 5.5.9 and Apache2 (on Red Hat 
Enterprise 3 with Java 1.5) I am finding that the attribute named "backlog" 
seems to have no affect, while the attribute named "acceptCount" does.

In my original load/configuration testing for deployment I had copied existing 
Connector configuration in the server.xml file from other defined Connectors.  
These use the "acceptCount" attribute name to manipulate the size of the 
pending request queue size.  However, the documentation for this same 
configuation specifies the use of "backlog", which does not appear to have an 
effect on performance.

I have inquired the users group about this topic, but have had no reply.  
Since I am seeing a performance change using "acceptCount", I can only assume 
at this time that the documentation is in error.

See http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.5-doc/config/ajp.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to