Hi Rainer,
Thanks for your informative and thoughtful reply.
Yes, we are definitely going with CMS. It's a product environment so
we have to be careful with whatever we plan to do. By tweaking
reply_timeout, be it hard or soft, we were actually circumventing the
problem rather than faci
gmentation, but they will be much rarer than without CMS.
If your GC stop times are about 30 seconds, then that is not good, but I
wouldn't reduce a reply_timeout to something much smaller anyhows. You
don't want to make the error detection very sensible, because then it is
not unlike
orker.tomcat01.type=ajp13
> worker.tomcat01.lbfactor=120
> worker.tomcat01.retries=2
> worker.tomcat01.socket_timeout=30
> worker.tomcat01.reply_timeout=3
> worker.tomcat01.recover_time=300
> #tomcat02
> worker.tomcat02.port=28009
> worker.tomcat02.host=localhost
> work
=18009
worker.tomcat01.host=localhost
worker.tomcat01.type=ajp13
worker.tomcat01.lbfactor=120
worker.tomcat01.retries=2
worker.tomcat01.socket_timeout=30
worker.tomcat01.reply_timeout=3
worker.tomcat01.recover_time=300
#tomcat02
worker.tomcat02.port=28009
worker.tomcat02.host=localhost
leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung
fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le
destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez
l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non au
leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung
fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le
destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez
l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusi
Vyv wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have a webservice running in Apache-Tomcat (6.0.16) on a Windows 2003
> server. It's running fine for quite a while now. The WS is a process that
> generates PDF documents.
>
> Today we experienced a reply timeout, because the process of generating the
> PDF took more
e PDF was created successfully, but the
client-app got the timeout error.
Is there a way of increasing the value of the reply-timeout?
Kind regards,
Vivian Pieters
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/reply_timeout-tp25398902p25398902.html
Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing
l get different
error.log message then the actual reason was.
So set the socket_timeout to some lower value (eg 90%)
of ServerTimeout.
In majority of cases you won't need the socket_timeout,
because with balancer you should use cping/cpong and
reply_timeout, that will handle most of
range default reply_timeout
Hubert de Heer wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> worker.host_1.socket_timeout=15
>
This is the root of the problem
cause it imposes the timeout on any socket operation
between mod_jk and tomcat.
>
>
> What we notice is that Apache will respond with an e
.
socket_timeout x 2 (one op and one retry)
This seems quite strange as without a reply_timeout set I would expect
the reply_timeout to default to 0 (timeout disabled).
This is to have infinite socket_timeout and
still have reply timeout.
Note that socket_timeout is fixed with 1.2.27, so
it
worker.host_1.connection_pool_timeout=600
server.xml
==
What we notice is that Apache will respond with an error 502 Bad Gateway
when a response takes more than 30sec.
This seems quite strange as without a reply_timeout set I would expect
the reply_timeout to default to 0 (timeout
for multiple "in-flight"
communications between Apache and Tomcat.
Whereas the reply_timeout is an internal timeout for a specific request,
ie the socket could be functioning fine but a specific reply is too late
to be useful.
So socket_timeout is helpful against servers that have tota
e le reproduire.
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Hagger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List"
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: mod_jk socket_timeout vs reply_timeout
> Hi,
>
> I'm just considering an update to our workers.
Hi,
I'm just considering an update to our workers.properties for the mod_jk
Apache plugin.
I'm not entirely sure what the difference between the socket_timeout and
reply_timeout handling is, if any.
socket_timeout is described as:
Socket timeout in seconds used for communicati
Good question (we need to add the distinction lb/usual worker) to the
docs page for the advanced worker parameters.
The answer is: Number 2.
Regards,
Rainer
Dan Carwin schrieb:
> Is reply_timeout designed to be set...
>
> 1. only for the loadbalancing worker.
> 2. for every worke
Is reply_timeout designed to be set...
1. only for the loadbalancing worker.
2. for every worker except the loadbalancer.
3. for every worker including the loadbalancer.
Thanks,
Dan Carwin
-
To start a new topic, e-mail: users
17 matches
Mail list logo
