Andre,
Response from Leon just about summarizes this issue: the shock absorber you
mention is not configurable. Setting the acceptCount to 1 or nine hundred
produces exactly the same behavior in terms of connections awaiting
response.
The "stricter" scheme hence, serves as a usable application wo
>
>
> This is not an accept problem, this is a problem with having serviced a
request via a socket and then closing the connection. Given that you
can't avoid accepting connections on a useful web server, you will not
be able to prevent them from going through their natural lifecycle.
>
Chris,
cause modern kernels
> simply ignore it.
>
> Leon
>
> P.S. By ignore I mean that ServerSocket.accept(100) has no effect.
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Timir Hazarika
> wrote:
> > Mark, I'm using netstat as follows. You can see the tomcat process
> list
Mark, I'm using netstat as follows. You can see the tomcat process listening
on 8443 and all the incoming requests in TIME_WAIT. These connections do get
cleared after the default timeout of 60 seconds, my intention is to refuse
creating them in the first place.
netstat -anp | grep 8443
tcp
explicit executor - but
> in vain.
Or am I missing something ?
Timir
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 13:37, "Timir Hazarika"
> wrote:
>
> > How would this configuration l
You just lost me. How would this configuration look like in server.xml ?
Timir
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Timir Hazarika [mailto:timir.hazar...@gmail.com]
> > Subject: Re: Tomcat does not honor acceptC
Chuck,
I would like tomcat to use a maximum of (say) 5 sockets on my system.
Further connection requests should be dropped. How may I achieve that ?
> The acceptCount is the value used by the platform's TCP/IP stack
> to limit the number of HTTP connection requests held in a queue.
> The number a
Folks,
What is the best way to limit connections in tomcat, if there is one ? I
have tried acceptCount, maxThreads, even specifying explicit executor - but
in vain.
Thanks in advance,
Timir
Never mind - I just figured out what text modifications went into that
revision.
Mark, any news on 6.0.21 timelines ? Up for release vote yet ?
Thanks,
Timir
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Timir Hazarika
wrote:
> Mark, I can't seem to find the newer patch, could you share a lin
Mark, I can't seem to find the newer patch, could you share a link please ?
Thanks,
Timir
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 16/12/2009 14:29, Timir Hazarika wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I just tried patching 6.0.20 with the tomcat6 fix mentio
Guys,
I just tried patching 6.0.20 with the tomcat6 fix mentioned at
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg70131.html
This gives me a concurrentmodificationexception:
java.util.ConcurrentModificationException
at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextEntry(Unknown Source)
Oh, and the maxheap, minheap, permsize are all set to 512M.
-Original Message-
From: Timir Hazarika (thazarik)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:40 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: FW: Tomcat 6.0.20 Causes Kernel Crash on Linux
Hm. I thoought all required informat
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:35 PM
To: users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Tomcat 6.0.20 Causes Kernel Crash on Linux
2009/11/18 Timir Hazarika (thazarik)
> Peter, we're talking a custom built linux server that has been in
> production for years. I'm wondering wha
Peter, we're talking a custom built linux server that has been in
production for years. I'm wondering what's magical with 6.0.20 that
causes my kernel such trouble, and why the problem doesn't surface with
any of the earlier builds.
I haven't changed any of the JNI in my system, or any code for t
14 matches
Mail list logo
