> > He's already using a low prepost_timeout of 50ms (IMO is way too low
> > and should be set to 250-500ms).
>
> Sorry, I had only little time and directly ran into our old problem,
> that some timeouts are seconds, and some are milliseconds. Your are
> right, 50 is way too small, se my new Timeouts docs page :)

Looks good. :-)

> > What he should also set is the connect_timeout setting, again, I would
> > recommend 500ms or higher.
>
> Yes, since prepost_timeout is already that small, I would also guess,
> that the minute he had to wait happened during connection establishment.
>
> Unfortunately, the connect_timeout will only help, if the connection can
> be established fast (the TCP connection), but then one wants to check,
> if Tomcat can answer fast (or maybe one is connected to something other
> than Tomcat).
>
> So in case the remote host is dead (i.e. it's not only Tomcat not
> answering or no Tomcat there), we have the problem, that TCP as a
> reliable problem tries hard to establish a connection with several
> resends of SYNs in increasing intervals, leading to long waiting times.

So with connect_timeout set to 500, mod_jk won't give up on the
connection attempt after 500 ms have elapsed?

> Mostly I agree, but I would set a timeout for athe connection pool.

Perhaps the default configuration and docs could be updated to reflect
that instead of setting to zero? I normally use these settings on my
servers:

socket_keepalive=1
socket_timeout=300
connection_pool_timeout=300
connect_timeout=500
prepost_timeout=500

I also normally set the worker maintain and lb worker recover_time to
something lower than the default as well so that mod_jk picks up
recovering workers more quickly. It would be nice if worker
maintenance could be done by a process other than the
processes/threads which also process requests!

-Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to