On 26/09/2013 02:47, Rainer Jung wrote:
> The TestCoyoteAdapter now neither fails with tcnative 1.1.28 nor with
> the additional APR_NOTFOUND change. I did 50 runs for each of the two
> versions and also for bio/nio/apr and none failed. Good!
+1
> I'm still a bit nervous about coupling the conne
Hi Mark,
On 25.09.2013 01:50, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/09/2013 16:19, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/09/2013 08:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2013 00:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>
I agree that there's probably another problem further up the stack.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at this now.
>>
>> I've
On 25.09.2013 01:50, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/09/2013 16:19, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/09/2013 08:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2013 00:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>
I agree that there's probably another problem further up the stack.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at this now.
>>
>> I've found a c
On 24/09/2013 16:19, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/09/2013 08:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/09/2013 00:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that there's probably another problem further up the stack.
>>
>> I'm looking at this now.
>
> I've found a couple of issues. Not sure if either of these are
On 24/09/2013 08:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/09/2013 00:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> I agree that there's probably another problem further up the stack.
>
> I'm looking at this now.
I've found a couple of issues. Not sure if either of these are the root
cause of the remaining issues we see but
On 23/09/2013 00:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
> I agree that there's probably another problem further up the stack.
I'm looking at this now.
> Since the apr endpoint explicitely uses the return value of remove to
> decide whether something was removed, APT_NOTFOUND seems better. But as
> you said: why
On 09/23/2013 09:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 23.09.2013 07:27, Mladen Turk wrote:
The patch seems fine. I mean any return value should do in theory.
The main question is why is particular socket removed twice
from the Poller.
I agree that there's probably another problem further up the sta
On 23.09.2013 07:27, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 09/22/2013 03:39 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 22.09.2013 13:17, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> I debugged around my occasional failures for TestCoyoteAdapter when
>>> using APR.
>>>
>>> Error is:
>>>
>>> SEVERE [http-apr-127.0.0.1-auto-13-Poller]
>>> org.apache.
On 09/22/2013 03:39 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 22.09.2013 13:17, Rainer Jung wrote:
I debugged around my occasional failures for TestCoyoteAdapter when
using APR.
Error is:
SEVERE [http-apr-127.0.0.1-auto-13-Poller]
org.apache.tomcat.util.net.AprEndpoint$Poller.run Poller failed with
error [81]
On 22.09.2013 15:39, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 22.09.2013 13:17, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> I debugged around my occasional failures for TestCoyoteAdapter when
>> using APR.
>>
>> Error is:
>>
>> SEVERE [http-apr-127.0.0.1-auto-13-Poller]
>> org.apache.tomcat.util.net.AprEndpoint$Poller.run Poller failed
On 22.09.2013 13:17, Rainer Jung wrote:
> I debugged around my occasional failures for TestCoyoteAdapter when
> using APR.
>
> Error is:
>
> SEVERE [http-apr-127.0.0.1-auto-13-Poller]
> org.apache.tomcat.util.net.AprEndpoint$Poller.run Poller failed with
> error [81] : [File descriptor in bad sta
I debugged around my occasional failures for TestCoyoteAdapter when
using APR.
Error is:
SEVERE [http-apr-127.0.0.1-auto-13-Poller]
org.apache.tomcat.util.net.AprEndpoint$Poller.run Poller failed with
error [81] : [File descriptor in bad state]
In the native world it is:
19372/128: port_a
12 matches
Mail list logo