On 08/01/2015 13:50, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-01-08 14:11 GMT+01:00 <ma...@apache.org>: > >> Author: markt >> Date: Thu Jan 8 13:10:59 2015 >> New Revision: 1650280 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1650280 >> Log: >> Fix failing unit test >> testMessagesBlocking(org.apache.coyote.http11.upgrade.TestUpgrade) >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java >> >> Modified: tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java?rev=1650280&r1=1650279&r2=1650280&view=diff >> >> ============================================================================== >> --- tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java >> (original) >> +++ tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java Thu >> Jan 8 13:10:59 2015 >> @@ -1099,9 +1099,7 @@ public class Nio2Endpoint extends Abstra >> int thisTime = transfer(buf, off, len, >> socketWriteBuffer); >> len = len - thisTime; >> off = off + thisTime; >> - if (socketWriteBuffer.remaining() == 0) { >> - flush(true); >> - } >> + flush(true); >> } >> > This doesn't look very good. Removing buffering = worse performance.
Agreed. > This is probably because upgrade wouldn't deal with buffering as the message > implies, so this could need an extra flag. On taking another look the problem is further up the call stack - the patch above was just working around it. I need to look into why I only saw the issue with NIO2. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
