https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58565
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> --- It seems like less buffer for NIO makes sense in general, though I agree that changing the default is probably not necessary, here. It might be worth mentioning in the documentation that NIO + slow speed = increased change of end-to-end timeouts. It seems like there is also the possibility of maybe having some kind of QoS setting that causes flushes to occur with more regularity, even if the buffer is large enough to handle more data. Something like once every few seconds maybe? That way, the (slow) writes won't pile-up and cause a large flush that takes too much time. I don't know enough about the underlying NIO and threading strategy to know whether this would be easy or difficult, or yet another unnecessary complication in an already complicated machine. But theoretically, there are always some values for which connections will be dropped due to this problem. Unless buffers are eliminated, which degrades NIO -> BIO which is of course not what we want. How does a user balance throughput and performance against fault-tolerance? (also, should this resolution be INVALID/NOTABUG or WORKSFORME?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
