Thank you, Andrew. If I understood this issue correctly, I think this issue has nothing to do with a pool size.
But, I will take your advice and ask on the users list with more specific configurations if they will need(Actually I also asked this on the users list. :-) ) Most of users(or devs) thought this was normal behavior of Apache and I could also understand the current logic. So I just stated my views. Thanks! Regards, Bongjae Chang 2012. 5. 26. 오전 1:09 Andrew Oliver <[email protected]> 작성: > You need to specify a pool size. Also ask on the users list. > > Thanks, > > Andrew C. Oliver > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Bongjae Chang <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Reindl, >> >> Thank you for the link. >> >> When I read the link, it also said "Faulty scenarios would be like >> filedescriptor leak, server not being >> execute close() on socket leading to pile up of close_wait sockets". >> >> I raised the very same issue(mod_proxy's backend connection which has been >> already closed). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Bongjae Chang >> >> >> >> >> On 5/25/12 6:01 PM, "Reindl Harald" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Am 25.05.2012 10:52, schrieb Bongjae Chang: >>>>>> Is the watcher thread which is going through all of the connections >>>>>> looking to see if they have been closed by the peer only solution? >>>>> >>>>> There is no thread. >>>> >>>> I see.. then I think that it will be useful if mod_proxy will support >>>> the >>>> feature later(just my opinion). >>> >>> as far as i understand this is normal TCP behavior for reusing sockets >>> >>> http://blogs.technet.com/b/janelewis/archive/2010/03/09/explaining-close-w >>> ait.aspx >>> >> >>
