DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44454>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44454





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-02-20 10:28 -------
Yeah, I did a bunch of load testing against these systems when we moved to 2.2
and 1.2.25 (we were using 2.0 and an internally hacked version of 1.2.<something
old, perhaps 12>) where I tossed a ton of requests at them to the tune of 5000
req/sec through JK with a couple of servers on the backend that soaked up the
dummy requests with a random delay.  These tests would run for over a day and
the result would have the busy count going back down to 0.  I suspect that this
is event driven, and that the load relationship exists simply because higher
loaded systems are more likely to experience the event.  Is there a case that
you can think of where the busy counter is incremented, but the thread is
aborted?  Is there JK logging that could be turned on for a while that would log
the increment and decrement of the counter with requests?  This way they could
be paired up and the specific requests not being decremented would be identified
and could be examined for issues.  It seems like the access log results would
not let us know this info because it could show the overall state at the
completion of the request, and not if the thread actually incremented and
decremented the counters.  I don't really know what I'm talking about, here, so
let me know if something like that is possible or not very practical.

Thanks,
Andrew

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

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

Reply via email to