in addition to that, shouldn;t the property be named "acceptCount" to
match the other connectors?
Filip
Takayuki Kaneko wrote:
Hi all,
IMHO, it is useful that we can set the backlog on AJP connector.
Because mod_jk 1.2.19 or later has "DisableReuse" option.
In previous versions, Tomcat had to be set the maxThreads lager than
Apache's MaxClients. So, Tomcat's threads were excessive.
I expect that Tomcat will be able to handle multiple socket by lesser
threads
with this option and backlog on AJP.
Regards,
-Takayuki
On 1/7/07, Peter Rossbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with you, but at apache takeover the backlog can be helpfull,
and default is 0 as before.
Regards
Peter
Am 07.01.2007 um 00:15 schrieb Bill Barker:
>
> "Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ok, this is hella confusing. :)
>> the AJP is supposed to be a persistent protocol, so why would we
>> have a
>> backlog on the listener?
>> ie, the connections can potentially not close at all in an ideal
>> world,
>> yet you would accept connections and never do anything with them?
>>
>
> I agree that setting the backlog on the AJP Connector is pretty
> pointless.
> I suppose that it might be possible to have a setup where Httpd can
> flood
> Tomcat with new requests faster than it can handle accepts, but at
> worst it
> would only be at startup. However, the worst that the patch does
> is let a
> clueless sysadm shoot herself in the foot :).
>
>> Filip
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
