tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: Purpose of unlockAccept
Date Mon, 07 May 2012 18:48:57 GMT
On 07/05/2012 17:24, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi
> Did some testing and removing unlockAccept works equally
> fine (and in some circumstances pause/continue and even shutdown is much
> faster).
> Using a simple socket close on stop/destroy and monitoring
> for pause 'after' acceptSocket() by not handling single
> connection received after pause eliminates the need for
> unlockAccept entirely.
> It also fixes various issues with disappearing network
> stack, link-local addresses, and various hang-outs on
> shutdown/pause.

I'm not entirely clear on what you are proposing. Can you provide a
proposed patch for this?

> Any objections that I commit that to trunk?

At the minute, I'm not sure.

> AFAICT this is not covered by any spec and the only
> change is that a single connection that could get accepted
> during pause phase can receive ECONNRESET instead ECONNREFUSED
> in case pause continues beyond client socket timeout.

That will be bad for connections from a reverse proxy when taking a
Tomcat instance out of a cluster. I'm leaning towards objecting to this
patch on that basis alone.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message