On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mathias Herberts wrote:
I agree that reusing the backend connections can be a good thing, but
there are times when this is just not a very good idea.
I agree that there are times when having a single-shot
connection is better than having a pool. It's
certainly
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mathias Herberts wrote:
I agree that reusing the backend connections can be a good thing, but
there are times when this is just not a very good idea.
I agree that there are times when having a single-shot
connection is better than having a
Hi,
back in october I submitted several patches to mod_proxy to address
some issues I had. At the time I was asked to resubmit my patched
against trunk instead of branch 2.2. I did not find the time then to
redo the work but at last I've been able to dedicate some time to this
task.
Included in
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:21 +0100, Mathias Herberts wrote:
Hi,
back in october I submitted several patches to mod_proxy to address
some issues I had. At the time I was asked to resubmit my patched
against trunk instead of branch 2.2. I did not find the time then to
redo the work but at last
On 3/16/07, Jean-Frederic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
* forceclose.patch
This patch adds a worker option 'forceclose' which can be set to 'On'
or 'Off' and which specifies if the backend connection should be
closed upon request completion.
Being able to force the closing of a
Mathias Herberts wrote:
The 'forceclose' patch will ensure that this situation will never
happen as the Cmax connections will not be kept idle. It will have a
slight performance penalty but that's better than a total inability to
serve requests (which should only happen when T0 is really
