tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Purpose of unlockAccept
Date Tue, 08 May 2012 06:41:55 GMT
On 05/08/2012 08:34 AM, Costin Manolache wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Mladen Turk<mturk@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>>
>> For real pause (stop accepting connections and wait till all sessions
>> times out) this can be done safely by setting 10 second timeout
>> on listening socket. It means that in worse case we would have
>> session-timeout + 10s.
>
>
> I see, you want a graceful shutdown, with a loadbalancer that uses the fact
> that the server rejects connections to indicate 'unhealthy' ( instead of
> some error code ). What about the listen backlog, even if you don't call
> accept it'll still ACK few connections that will timeout.
>

The current patch I've send doesn't use timeout.
If paused a single connection will get accepted but not
processed thus behaving exactly like backlog.
Later if continued (pause during deploy) it'll be processed or
closed (exactly like backlog behaves).


> Sorry, never used pause(), the lbs I know use status code from the health
> check, and the server is supposed to keep accepting connections until the
> LB figures things out ( and to be really 'graceful' the LB could keep
> sending requests for established sessions for a while, but not new sessions
> ).
>
> Well - +1, as long as you're sure the close() not unblocking accept() bug
> is no longer there ( may have been 10 years ago in 1.1, can't remember :-)
>

Well, the javadocs for ServerSocket.close() says:
Closes this socket.
Any thread currently blocked in accept() will throw a SocketException.



Regards
-- 
^TM

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message