More on this.

The problem seems to occurs in network mode and never in local mode.

Didn't have problem between Apache 2 and Tomcat 6.0.2 when both are on
the same machine :

worker.local.type=ajp13
worker.local.port=8009
worker.local.host=localhost

If the local worker goes to network, the problem occurs.

Very stange, I'll try with to be released 1.2.20 mod_jk

2006/12/7, Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Same problem here with much smaller PDF and Tomcat 6.0.2 :

As you could see the problem occurs between 81920 and 90112 bytes sent ;(

The problem may be related to Apache2 level, since I've got this
problem on some Suse SLES 9 system where Apache2 RPM is not up to
date.

file to be sent is 162748 long, iosize=8192

lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=8192
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=16384
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=24576
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=32768
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=40960
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=49152
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=57344
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=65536
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=73728
lReadLen=8192
lSentLen=81920
lReadLen=8192
stackTrace is ClientAbortException:  java.io.IOException
        at 
org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer.realWriteBytes(OutputBuffer.java:357)
        at org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.ByteChunk.flushBuffer(ByteChunk.java:434)
        at org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.ByteChunk.append(ByteChunk.java:349)
        at 
org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer.writeBytes(OutputBuffer.java:380)
        at 
org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer.write(OutputBuffer.java:369)
        at 
org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteOutputStream.write(CoyoteOutputStream.java:89)




2006/12/5, Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Devs,
>
> I sent this to the user list without any responses. I am looking for some
> insight from the dev list. You can also see the nabble archive of the
> user-list posting at
> 
http://www.nabble.com/mod_jk-problem-when-streaming-files-larger-than-%7E400k-%28causes-ClientAbortException%29-t2756411.html
>
> If I don't get any responses, then I can submit a bugzilla bug with a
> "testcase" war file and its source (maven driven) so that the devs can
> play around with it.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Haroon Rafique
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:01:19 -0500 (EST)
> From: Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: mod_jk problem when streaming files larger than ~400k (causes
>      ClientAbortException)
>
> Hi,
>
> I am using mod_jk 1.2.19 on Linux with JDK 1.5.0_08, tomcat 5.5.20. Our
> application is struts-based and in one of our actions we stream a PDF to the
> client. The pseudo-code for outputting the response back to the client is as
> follows (assuming baos contains a ByteArrayOutputStream):
>
>               OutputStream out = response.getOutputStream();
>               baos.writeTo(out);
>               out.flush();
>               out.close();
>
> We noticed no problems when the size of baos was less than 400k. Now the
> filesize has jumped to a little greater than 400k. With mod_jk in the picture,
> intermittently (not all the time), we get ClientAbortException:
>
>       Caused by: ClientAbortException:  java.io.IOException
>           at
>           
org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer.realWriteBytes(OutputBuffer.java:366)
>
> The end result being that the PDF is truncated and Acrobat considers it
> damaged.
>
> Without mod_jk in the picture, everything is fine.
>
> Turning up the mod_jk logging to debug gave me too much info. Turning it down
> to info gave me some clues. Basically, there are 3 flavors of the failures.
> Maybe they are all the same but it might appear different to a
> trained eye, so I'm posting all three.
>
> Flavor 1 error:
> ===============
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       ajp_connection_tcp_get_message::
>       jk_ajp_common.c (941): (local) Tomcat has forced a connection close for
>       socket 22
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [error]
>       ajp_get_reply::jk_ajp_common.c (1562): (local) Tomcat is down or network
>       problems. Part of the response has already been sent to the client
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (18 28): (local) receiving from tomcat
>       failed,
>       recoverable operation attempt=0
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1867): (local) sending request to tomcat
>       failed,
>       recoverable operation attempt=1
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       ajp_process_callback::jk_ajp_common.c (1410): Writing to client aborted 
or
>       client
>       network problems
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1795): (local) request failed, because of
>       client
>       write error without recovery in send loop attempt=1
> [Mon Dec 04 14:28:59 2006] [25445:9920] [info]
>       jk_handler::mod_jk.c (2056): Aborting connection for worker=local
>
> Flavor 2 error:
> ===============
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:30 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1170): (local) socket 22 is not
>       connected
>       any more (errno=0)
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:30 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1194): (local) error sending request.
>       Will
>       try another pooled connection
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:30 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1218): (local) all endpoints are
>       disconnected
>       or dead
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:30 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1867): (local) sending request to tomcat
>       failed,
>       recoverable operation attempt=1
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_connection_tcp_get_message::jk_ajp_common.c (941): (local) Tomcat 
has
>       forced a connection close for socket 22
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [error]
>       ajp_get_reply::jk_ajp_common.c (1562): (local) Tomcat is down or network
>       problems. Part of the response has already been sent to the client
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1828): (local) receiving from tomcat 
failed,
>       recoverable operation attempt=1
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1867): (local) sending request to tomcat
>       failed,
>       recoverable operation attempt=2
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [error]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1879): (local) Connecting to tomcat 
failed.
>       Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the wrong port
> [Mon Dec 04 14:30:32 2006] [25448:9920] [info]
>       jk_handler::mod_jk.c (2063): Service error=0 for worker=local
>
> Flavor 3 error:
> ===============
> [Mon Dec 04 14:32:31 2006] [25444:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1170): (local) socket 22 is not
>       connected any more (errno=0)
> [Mon Dec 04 14:32:31 2006] [25444:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1194): (local) error sending
>       request.  Will try another pooled connection
> [Mon Dec 04 14:32:31 2006] [25444:9920] [info]
>       ajp_send_request::jk_ajp_common.c (1218): (local) all endpoints are
>       disconnected or dead
> [Mon Dec 04 14:32:31 2006] [25444:9920] [info]
>       ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1867): (local) sending request to tomcat
>       failed,  recoverable operation attempt=1
>
>
> Does anyone have any experience with streaming large files using mod_jk? If I
> don't get any responses I will try the dev list.
>
> Here's my mod_jk.conf:
>
> LoadModule jk_module modules/mod_jk.so
> JkWorkersFile conf/workers.properties
> JkLogFile logs/mod_jk.log
> JkLogLevel info
> JkShmFile logs/mod_jk.shm
> JkMount /jkstatus/ status
> JkMount /sws/* local
>
> Here's my workers.properties:
>
> worker.list=local,status
> worker.local.type=ajp13
> worker.local.port=8009
> worker.local.host=localhost
> worker.status.type=status
> worker.status.port=8009
> worker.status.host=localhost
>
> Anyone see any glaring mistakes or oddities? As I mentioned earlier, the same
> setup worked fine. The only trigger that I can think of is the slight increase
> in file size.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> --
> Haroon Rafique
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to