Sorry, the gist of that was that IE might think the ajax requests are still open, thus the rest of the calls will queue up. you'll also find your home page loads much faster using multiple domains as you can load Subdomains / 2 at a time giving a speed increase of Queries * Subdomains/2. :P
On 3/1/07, Gareth Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > IE limits concurrent requests to 2 simultaneously. > You could try using seperate subdomains or moving some of your requests to > IP addresses that are the same as the domain your webserver. > Then retest and see if you get the prob. If you are shutting IE down, and > the problem still persists then it indicates its something higher up. > You could also try checking task manager to ensure the IE instances have > closed properly before you restart. > > Gareth > > > On 3/1/07, szaroubi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > I am new to the list. I am currently using prototype.js version > > 1.4.0, for an application we are developing to be used with IE6&7. > > I am having a problem which can be triggered as so: > > > > 1) Open Window with 10 Ajax Request connections starting on Load > > 2) Right after the page loads (and you feel like the Ajax Requests > > have been triggered) close the window > > 3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 about 3~4 times > > 4) All other Ajax Requests within IE session will not work (I used > > a network scanner to sniff the packets on my network and see that the > > Ajax Requests are not even sending a request) > > > > > > The problem happens with both IE6 and IE7. Upgrading to 1.5.0 is > > not really an option as we have found other problem in 1.5.0 which > > break under IE7. > > The problem seams to be a "connection leak" or "dangling > > connection" problem in IE (connections are not being closed correctly > > and IE thinks that they are still open). > > > > Has anyone seen a problem like that? Does anyone have an idea where > > I can look? Possible work around (Setting a reg key to increase the > > number of allowed connections in IE (even if it's just a not very > > robust workaround)) ? > > > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Thank you for your time > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
