On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 19:10 +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
Martin Spinassi schrieb:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:12 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
remove this
worker.maintain=30
worker.worker1.connection_pool_size=1
for now, and just accept the defaults
Filip
Wow
Hi to all again!
I keep working on some performance on tomcat and apache, but there is
something that I can't figure out.
Using jmeter to do the tests, connecting to port 80 (tomcat), I get the
next error at catalina.out:
Nov 24, 2008 1:51:54 PM org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPool
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:19 -0600, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Martin Spinassi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: All threads are busy
Nov 24, 2008 1:51:54 PM org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPool
logFull
SEVERE: All threads (200) are currently busy, waiting. Increase
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:33 -0600, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Martin Spinassi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: All threads are busy
I should get the same errors using ports 80 or 8080, and I get
completely different results.
Connector executor= tomcatThreadPool port=8009
Hi everyone!
I'm doing some performance tests under apache and tomcat using jakarta
connectors.
Searching around, I've read about apache-worker (not jakarta), to make
it multi-process and multi-thread, but I'm having some troubles with
connectors now.
Here is the output of jk_mod_log:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 19:56 +0100, André Warnier wrote:
Martin Spinassi wrote:
Hi everyone!
I'm doing some performance tests under apache and tomcat using jakarta
connectors.
Searching around, I've read about apache-worker (not jakarta), to make
it multi-process and multi
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:12 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
remove this
worker.maintain=30
worker.worker1.connection_pool_size=1
for now, and just accept the defaults
Filip
Wow!! That just made the trick!
Please, can you explain me how those changes affects?
Thanks you
I've been trying to implement apache2 + connectors + tomcat on our
servers, put keep having disconnections from connectors and tomcat.
Here I post some output from jk_mod_log:
own, stopped or network problems (errno=110)
[Fri Nov 07 16:32:18.585 2008] [31998:670424352] [error]
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 23:31 +0200, André Warnier wrote:
Martin Spinassi wrote:
[...]
Martin,
I re-read the thread from the beginning, and as I understand it you have
- clients that upload files, most of then images
- clients that download these same images
- and you would like a system
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:34 -0700, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Christopher Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose it depends on the frequency of image uploads. 100 images a day
wouldn't be too bad. 100 images per minute would seriously suck.
True, I was
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:59 -0400, Paul McGurn wrote:
If you're expecting the size of your image store to grow, or better yet, grow
rapidly, you'd be best served to consider a strategy either with
mod_proxy/mod_rewrite, or better yet, looking into a CDN (content delivery
network) to host
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:37 -0700, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Martin Spinassi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know yet, I didn't try it yet, I was waiting to see if there is
a better solution than rsync them every minute.
Why not have your upload servlet
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 08:56 -0700, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Martin Spinassi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not have your upload servlet invoke rsync when a new file has
been stored?
Can you give me some more details or where to get some more info
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 22:20 +0200, André Warnier wrote:
[...]
The question I've been holding back since your initial post, is why
exactly you do want to load-balance similar requests to 2 Tomcats ?
Just an idea :
If it is because you have a) image stuff and b) non-image stuff, and
they
14 matches
Mail list logo
