Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hc-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5074 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2008 09:58:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2008 09:58:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 28628 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2008 09:58:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hc-dev-archive@hc.apache.org Received: (qmail 28596 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2008 09:58:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hc.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "HttpComponents Project" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hc.apache.org Received: (qmail 28585 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jun 2008 09:58:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:58:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.68.5.16] (HELO relay02.pair.com) (209.68.5.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:57:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 9606 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2008 09:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.5?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 26 Jun 2008 09:56:32 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 124.43.215.160 Message-ID: <486367CF.8080007@wso2.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:26:31 +0530 From: "Asankha C. Perera" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@synapse.apache.org CC: HttpComponents Project Subject: Re: Possible Causes for "Connection reset by peer" when using NIO References: <1214414162.6056.9.camel@ubuntu> <48628967.5070909@wso2.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050702040107050504060704" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------050702040107050504060704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Eric > This brings me to a new idea and I what like to hear what you think > about. > What if I would decrease the value for http.socket.timeout to 20000 for > Synapse, so to be definitely lower than the one on the server side. What > would be the expected result? Would I see another exception, if the > timeout on the Synapse side is reached? Maybe I'm wrong and there are > requests which take longer, even if they are neither listed in our > statistics nor in the http access logs of the Bea server. > I think this is a good idea.. as we will close the session on our own without an exception, and then BEA can close it from that side asankha -- Asankha C. Perera WSO2 - http://wso2.org http://esbmagic.blogspot.com --------------050702040107050504060704--