Any more thoughts on this, especially on the current thread pool behavior? Jarek
On 10/9/07, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/9/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Jarek, > > Thanks for tracking this down. > > > > 50 threads per connector seems like overkill to me. It's dependent on > > application behavior. So, hard to predict... But I would consider > > lowering the per connector thread count. I won't argue with > > increasing the thread pool size, however... > > > > I also think these WARN messages are a bit less useful than they > > ought to be... > > What number should we lower it to? 25? 30? Maybe we should consider > also having the AJP connector be disabled by default? It consumes lots > of threads but probably is not used most of the time. > > Another thing I noticed that in ThreadPool.java the ThreadPoolExecutor > is configured with the same corePoolSize and maximumPoolSize. Which > means (if I'm reading the documentation right) that everytime you > submit a task to execute a new thread will be created until > maximumPoolSize threads are created. Also, setting corePoolSize == > maximumPoolSize means that the idle threads will not be reclaimed. So > basically, we are not reusing threads until we have maximumPoolSize > threads running and we will never reclaim any idle threads. This seems > pretty bad to me especially since our pool is now set to 500. > > Jarek >
