Any more thoughts on this, especially on the current thread pool behavior?
Jarek
On 10/9/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/9/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jarek,
Thanks for tracking this down.
50 threads per connector seems like overkill to me. It's dependent
Disabling AJP by default makes a lot of sense. Users that are
interested will seek it out.
I think 25 threads per core as a default makes sense as a good
starting point. Assuming most people would run a 4-way for
production a default in the thread pool like 100 is a good
starting
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Oh, I think I know what's going on. Jetty is configured with 3
connectors. Each connector is configured with 50 threads. So by the
time the server starts up all the threads in the pool are taken..
Looks like in Jetty we must set the thread pool
On 10/9/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jarek,
Thanks for tracking this down.
50 threads per connector seems like overkill to me. It's dependent on
application behavior. So, hard to predict... But I would consider
lowering the per connector thread count. I won't argue with
Folks,
For last few days the 2.0 tests have been timing out. The server just
keeps logging the following exceptions:
20:56:32,531 WARN [log] dispatch failed!
20:56:32,531 WARN [JettyThreadPool]
java.util.concurrent.RejectedExecutionException
20:56:32,531 WARN [log] dispatch failed!
Oh, I think I know what's going on. Jetty is configured with 3
connectors. Each connector is configured with 50 threads. So by the
time the server starts up all the threads in the pool are taken..
Looks like in Jetty we must set the thread pool size to 150.
Jarek
On 10/8/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL
