On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 08:31 -0700, KARR, DAVID (ATTSI) wrote: > If I had a background task that was monitoring certain conditions, and > it had a handle to an HttpClient object, or perhaps the Method object, > where the Method was still executing, what would be the cleanest way to > force terminate the connection from the background task, such that the > method execution would get a reasonable exception that could be > interpreted as either a timeout or a force disconnect? I see the > "HttpMethodBase.abort()" method. Would this be reasonable? >
Yes, it would. > For a little more background, I'm considering this to implement a "hard > timeout" on HttpClient connections, as the socket timeout doesn't really > do that. When the system is under high load, we find that connections > go well over what we wanted as the "time limit" for the connection. > We've concluded that we'd rather terminate over-long connections, even > if they would have normally succeeded, as we think it might help overall > scalability. > If your main objective is scalability I am not sure if this approach is going to help especially when using SSL connections. Oleg > Even if I could have the background task terminate the connection > cleanly, I'm not certain this will help our situation, and determining > whether it will help before it gets to production will be difficult. > When the system is under high load, things tend to be a little chaotic > :) . I might find that my background task doesn't get enough time to > run, or it might end up making the other tasks take longer. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
