If 100 is a constraint for the pool size, it should be stated in the Tomcat 
User's manual, since there it is explained how to increase the pool, but no 
max is given.

I observed Exceptions when using more than 100 threads in the pool, coming 
from one or two arrays which have fixed size 100 in the tomcat code.

I could not reproduce these errors after I updated from 3.2 to 3.2.2 and to 
3.3. Is there a reason, why I could stably use a bigger pool with these 
version? I put 240 concurrent requests on apache.

Which was the apache version you used, when the hang problem occured?

At 16:47 22.04.01 , you wrote:
>Two things.  First, the other problem that I was seeing turned out to be an
>Apache problem.  I switched to Apache 1.3.19 and my thread hang problems
>went away.  That problem seemed to be a synchronization thing that occurred
>if requests showed up too close together.
>
>As for the thread pool stuff.  By default, Tomcat 3.2.x thread pools create
>10 threads.  This can be changed using the min_spare_threads parameter.  The
>pools will grow as needed up to the maximum number of threads allowed (100,
>by default).  You can increase the maximum number of allowed threads using
>the max_threads parameter.  See if this fixes your problem better than using
>SimpleTcpConnector.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pogo Com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 5:39 PM
> > To: Marc Saegesser; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: 3.2.2b3 mod_jk gets stuck in readFully
> >
> >
> > After quite a bit of struggle, I think I found out what is going on.  The
> > problem is that the default configuration of Tomcat does not have enough
> > threads in its thread pool for the default configuration of Apache.  This
> > issue would only be apparent if many Apache children were in use.
> >
> > The result was that any Apache children over the number of Tomcat threads
> > would hang waiting for Tomcat to respond to requests.  Tomcat would not
> > respond until threads became available, which could be quite a
> > long time if
> > Apache children were not dying off (ie, because load was
> > increasing during the
> > day).
> >
> > I was wrong about the threads being stuck in readFully.  The real
> > problem is
> > that not enough threads existed at all (ie, the thread handling
> > socket accept
> > would be blocked).
> >
> > The simplest workaround is to change the AJP13 connector to
> > SimpleTcpConnector
> > rather than PoolTcpConnector in server.xml.
> >
> > I strongly suggest that thread pool exhaustion emit a log
> > message, since this
> > was quite difficult to track down.  Additionally, it would be
> > better for the
> > default configuration to be more robust.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Marc Saegesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I finally got some time to look at this and I think I can duplicate the
> > > problem your seeing.  Hopefully, its the problem your seeing, or else we
> > > have two serious problems.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Reply via email to