Rainer,
Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > If you like, we are always keen on helpful documentation. Maybe a page > about sizing connection pool and the relation between connections, web > server processes, IIS workers and Tomcat threads, measuring your needs > and the dangers arising from going to far. > Sure, as soon as I understand the problem completely, which I did not so far. Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > I see, yes the default changed end of 2006 between 1.2.19 and 1.2.20. > Usually we don't change defaults, but the 10 was really to low. > Though I keep thinking it is probably better to choose a small default than a large one in this case. Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > Yes, if the notion of worker is an IIS worker and not an isapi plugin > worker. A plugin worker in the sense of a worker configuration item in > workers.properties is 1:1 with a connection pool, and a connection pool > doesn't create threads. It will grow at most as the lower of thread > number and configured pool size. > Well, no, maybe we need to go some steps back. I am talking about JK workers (isapi plugin workers), and I have no IIS workers: the problem is on IIS 5. As I said I have a connection_pool_size currently set to 300 on the JK worker (IIS side) and a matching maxThreads set to 300 on the Tomcat side. What you are telling me is that I don't have 300 threads on this IIS/JK worker side, but simply (a maximum of) 300 tcp connections to the Tomcat instance, is this right? So maybe I am just out of connections.. Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > Done. > Though it would fit better on "connections" page more than on a "timeouts" page. :-) Thanks for the help! br1 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JK-and-IIS---troubles--tp19750760p19818811.html 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]
