At least with the Solaris TCP stack, the SoTimeouts make no difference at all to the 'ab' times. However, it's easy enough to make it a configuration option.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Optimizing Coyote > I'm surprised at the expense: I had thought that this should be little more > than setting a note in the O/S kernel. It's also pretty much what > Apache/httpd 2.0 does, at least last time I looked. > > However, I'll take another look at them. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:58 AM > Subject: Optimizing Coyote > > > > Hi, > > > > Many optimizations in Coyote HTTP/1.1 are quite straightforward, but > > some others are more difficult. > > > > Right now, I'm "stuck" trying to optimize the amount of get/setSoTimeout > > method calls. Each of them is relatively expensive, and probably ends up > > exercizing the network stack more than we would like. I will try to > > experiment and commit things. Can you review them Bill ? > > > > Thanks, > > Remy > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
