httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: more lingering_close...
Date Sun, 09 Feb 1997 21:36:32 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> A timeout is a different matter. We should not l_c() a timed out connection -
> that is silly - we are aborting it, because it isn't behaving, so trying to be
> nice to it is self-destructive.

It's not that we are l_c()ing a timed-out link but that l_c() contains
a timeout itself. Thus, if Apache wants or needs to close the connection
(say it doesn't want to handle anymore persistant connections) this
would be handled by l_c(). l_c() closes all output but keeps on
accepting input. However, it also has a timer in it such that if,
during that time, it doesn't rec' input after a period of time,
it simply closes the link anyway. If the whole idea behind l_c() is
to NOT close the connection until we are 100% sure that the client
is ready for it, then having a timer in it defeats it's own purpose.

Now, as devil's advocate, if it's OK for l_c() to have a timer to
keep from sucking up resources then how does l_c() help out? There
is no real diff between closing the link or closing-output/waiting-a-
few-seconds/closing-if-no-response. If the input we get is VERY slow,
then once again we have a process tied up reading input, with the
performance hits of that (at the least, we have a process just sitting
there)... As it stands now, we have to wait until we gobble up every-
thing before we can close the link...

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message