L.S.
Is there an ETA for this change?
Greetings,
Peter van der Velde
-Original Message-
From: David Latorre [mailto:dvl...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 1 april 2010 12:57
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: FTPServer handling of multiple concurrent connections.
2010/3/31 Niklas
[mailto:dvl...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 1 april 2010 12:57
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: FTPServer handling of multiple concurrent connections.
2010/3/31 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote
Great, I will fetch the trunk then.
Thanks!
Greetings,
Peter.
-Original Message-
From: Sai Pullabhotla [mailto:sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com]
Sent: vrijdag 23 april 2010 15:24
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: FTPServer handling of multiple concurrent connections.
I'm pretty sure
2010/3/31 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
Since I did not hear back anything on this, I will ask again :).
Are you guys okay with the proposed short term solution?
+1 to option 1 and to defaulting
Since I did not hear back anything on this, I will ask again :).
Are you guys okay with the proposed short term solution?
Regards,
Sai Pullabhotla
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
Since changing everything over to MINA could be quite a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
Since I did not hear back anything on this, I will ask again :).
Are you guys okay with the proposed short term solution?
+1 to option 1 and to defaulting to max users.
/niklas
Hello,
When inspecting http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FTPSERVER-359 I
noticed that we might have an issue with threading in Ftpserver.
I think we are using a 'fixed size thread pool' with max-threads=16
for the Executor threadpool in which commands are executed. This would
mean that if we
I don't think that was intended. If this is in fact an issue, we
should probably consider adding a configuration option such as
maxThreads as the default max we choose may not be the best in all
cases.
Regards,
Sai Pullabhotla
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:29 AM, David Latorre dvl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I don't think that was intended. If this is in fact an issue, we
should probably consider adding a configuration option such as
maxThreads as the default max we choose may not be the best in all
cases.
I
What would be the benefit of using MINA compared to the traditional
sockets, especially for passive connections?
Regards,
Sai Pullabhotla
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Sai Pullabhotla
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
What would be the benefit of using MINA compared to the traditional
sockets, especially for passive connections?
That we don't get one thread for each one socket. Perhaps this is not
such a big issue, at least
2010/3/30 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Sai Pullabhotla
sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com wrote:
I don't think that was intended. If this is in fact an issue, we
should probably consider adding a configuration option such as
maxThreads as the default max
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:22 PM, David Latorre dvl...@gmail.com wrote:
I would rather go for a solution that make it impossible to block
FTPServer rather than making it 'more difficult'.
For this, we might limit the total number of data connections which
wouldn't be perfect but might help...
Since changing everything over to MINA could be quite a bit of work,
and the issue we have is somewhat serious, we should come up with a
short term solution first and release a patch. Perhaps this patch
would do the following:
Option 1: Have Max Threads as a configurable option at the server
14 matches
Mail list logo