----------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE YOU POST, search the faq at <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
WHEN YOU POST, include all relevant version numbers, log files,
and configuration files. Don't make us guess your problem!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
>no effect on counterpart threads executing in the JServ Java VM process
>space. Thus, a possible scenario today is a spike in requests to some
>intensive resource, like a JDBC database, a 'freeze out' can occur. That
>is to say, even though Apache may have correctly executed its timeout
>operation, JServ is in fact still trying to serve all the requests. In
>my opinion, this is a scalability problem.
More effictive to me would simply be a much lower timeout on the
Apache side - when a JServ "freezes" on a resource - Apache
continues to send requests to it without marking it failed even
though it's not getting any responses back.
>The thing I like about inserting a callback handler for timeouts is
>Apache can more or less immediately halt operation in the JServ VM since
>any subsequent read or write to the underlying socket will fail and the
>thread will die. We could take it a step further, so that we actually
>communicate a kill request, but I'm not sure how much more effective it
>would be. In general though, communicating an Apache timeout condition
>in some way, shape or form strikes me as much more scalable.
I guess, but if it's frozen on a resource like JDBC and especially
if you dump your content at the end of jserv processing rather than
streaming it out, you're not going to hit that socket write failure
soon enough in any of my cases. :(
Cott
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
