Hello bro,

Yes, it killed the problem definitively! 3:)

I did many tests using different machines and now it works like a charm,
thanks a lot for this fix.

However ( ^^' ), I saw a small problem, but it is related only to the
keep-alive feature, even using previous versions like 0.9.46: when I use
keep-alive, I get many errors in many requests. When I disable the
keep-alive, I get only some errors. It is very easy to be reproduced, but
you need to use some tool like JMeter. Let's go to see that:

. get JMeter here [1] and execute its jar file (on Windows, I just double
click in the `ApacheJMeter.jar` file);
. get this jmx file[2] file and open it in the JMeter (if you prefer, I can
explain you what I used in this test);
. expand the "Thread Group" hree, select the "Aggregate Report" options,
and click the `Start` button after compile and run this[3] example.

In my machine, when I kept the line [4] commented (ie, using keep-alive),
the result was:

Samples: 15000
95% line: 75
*Error: 51,52%*

But, when I uncommented this line (ie, using connection close instead of
keep-alive) and retested it, the result was:

Samples: 15000
95% line: 572 // yes, it's OK for `connection: close`
*Error: 0,56%*

In short: using keep-alive you get ~51,52% errors and connection close only
0,56%. It is a little bit strange, because I did some tests using other
servers (NodeJS, Jetty and Nginx) and it works fine, 0,0% erros. :-/

[1]
http://mirror.nbtelecom.com.br/apache//jmeter/binaries/apache-jmeter-2.13.zip
[2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/wiu5gtsflj8omz0/HTTP%20Request.jmx?dl=1
[3] http://pastebin.com/3wC5035F
[4] MHD_add_response_header(response, MHD_HTTP_HEADER_CONNECTION, "close")

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Reading the code I noticed an #ifdef WINDOWS'ed call to shutdown() that
> would only be executed (in your particular setting) whenever yet another
> connection was accepted, possibly delaying the TCP connection tear down.
> I've tried to move the respective logic to happen earlier in SVN 36731.
>  Please try this version, and let me know if this fixes your problem.
> (Again, the problem doesn't really hit me on GNU/Linux, so this may or
> may not be related.)
>
> Happy hacking!
>
> Christian


-- 
Silvio Clécio

Reply via email to