I have repeated the rapid click test after I updated the connectionTimeout=600000, still getting the -53 and also -54 errors. This time I have set log levels to debug. I'll send you a separate e-mail where you can download them when you are back on Friday. Again thank you for your help so far.
J.Neuhoff Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > JNeuhoff schrieb: >>> connection timeout on mod_jk side is in seconds, on tomcat side is in >>> milliseconds. So Mladens suggestion had a missing trailing 0 to make the >>> params on the two sides fit. I think he meant connectionTimeout=600000 >>> to make it fit the 600 on the mod_jk side. >> >> Thanks, you are right, there was a missing zero. I'll repeat the test >> tomorrow with the correct value. > > I don't expect that to fix the -53 problem, but the behaviour of the > timeouts will be more consistent. > >> >> Your explanation with the threads agrees with my observations. >> >>> Finally: from your last statement I'm not sure that I understand, what >>> the real problems are now: >> >> It is not a memory leak problem, even though with the growing number of >> threads it can grow to over 150MB, but it then stays at that level. >> >> The problem are the err=-53 conditions. While both Apache2 and Tomcat >> continue to run and receive and respond to incoming requests, Apache2 is >> unable to receive Tomcat's reponses (err=-53). Also, though Apache2 >> continues to serve other static pages just fine according to its >> access.log, >> the client web browser client never receives the responses. Instead, it >> complaints about failed connections. The only static pages the web >> browser >> was able to receive was the standard 503 error page (Service Unavailable) >> when attempting to access the Tomcat web service. I ended up re-starting >> our >> live server twice during the last 24 hours. > > Aha. Maybe there are two different things, the 53 problem and the fact, > that your clients are not able to retrieve even static content, although > apache thinks it has delivered the content. For the second problem it > could be interesting to check, if this observation holds true, even if > you try to receive a static page from a client not included in your > click test. > > Do I remember correctly, that Apache and Tomcat are on the same machine? > Is there a firewall on this machine? > >> >>> If you can easily reproduce, a mod_jk log with >>> JkLogLevel debug would be helpful. >> >> I'll do that tomorrow. > > The file might get big. I could download from a web site or similar. > I'll be away for two days, so don't expect an answer before friday. > >> >>> mod_jk error 53: the only remaining problem. Does it imply a problem on >>> the user side? >> >> I had our sysadmin check the hardware and network equipment today, and he >> also examined the Windows 2003 event logs. He couldn't find anything >> abnormal. >> >> J.Neuhoff >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/mod_jk-replacement--tf3050993.html#a8561191 Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
