Thank you, Andrew.
If I understood this issue correctly, I think this issue has nothing to do with a pool size.
But, I will take your advice and ask on the users list with more specific configurations if
they will need(Actually I also asked this on the users list. :-) )
Most of users(or devs) thought this was normal behavior of Apache and I could also understand
the current logic. So I just stated my views.
Thanks!
Regards,
Bongjae Chang
2012. 5. 26. 오전 1:09 Andrew Oliver <acoliver@gmail.com> 작성:
> You need to specify a pool size. Also ask on the users list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew C. Oliver
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Bongjae Chang <bongjae.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Reindl,
>>
>> Thank you for the link.
>>
>> When I read the link, it also said "Faulty scenarios would be like
>> filedescriptor leak, server not being
>> execute close() on socket leading to pile up of close_wait sockets".
>>
>> I raised the very same issue(mod_proxy's backend connection which has been
>> already closed).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bongjae Chang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/12 6:01 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 25.05.2012 10:52, schrieb Bongjae Chang:
>>>>>> Is the watcher thread which is going through all of the connections
>>>>>> looking to see if they have been closed by the peer only solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no thread.
>>>>
>>>> I see.. then I think that it will be useful if mod_proxy will support
>>>> the
>>>> feature later(just my opinion).
>>>
>>> as far as i understand this is normal TCP behavior for reusing sockets
>>>
>>> http://blogs.technet.com/b/janelewis/archive/2010/03/09/explaining-close-w
>>> ait.aspx
>>>
>>
>>
|