On Aug 5, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> On 05.08.2013 13:18, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Thomas Eckert >> <thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> One could do an 'OPTIONS *' request. But I am not sure if that is any >>>> better than proxy-initial-not-pooled in terms of performance. >>> >>> I don't see why an OPTIONS request should not encounter problems where a GET >>> request will. After all, the problem is on the transport layer, not on the >>> application layer. Am I missing something ? >> >> Could have problems at either level (e.g. MaxKeepalives) > > I think what people are trying to say: another request in front of each > request might increase the relative frequency (per real request) with > which the problem occurs. > +1
