Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79403 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2010 06:59:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2010 06:59:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 62243 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2010 06:59:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 61678 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2010 06:59:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 61669 invoked by uid 99); 1 Sep 2010 06:59:46 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:59:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yoavnaveh@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.45] (HELO mail-vw0-f45.google.com) (209.85.212.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:59:40 +0000 Received: by mail-vw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 19so7880293vws.18 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:59:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=fnsgLYLc/32QTLgrWy64CMg+4GXlNDljrTmqWpTJGos=; b=tGz06MLVKCvUeGqu55KNIyiLOCdEtTTxn0y/3Cc0h//jDFETg57FtwLIKmKPDWjQG3 VXfbUXHCX6vQPR0EVL9J0c4dS+iYUeScnLpDp4Z650Mgcas9O6xxthfJuaH87ow1otKq t24rsjxXph3Q9JnZ1C5do7C5IX5HbWhvRHrjY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=T7DZd9TDJ441ASxlznCfRdV+uoUDwe00xxtkkX7ckn4g9QgGz/Dy6pE/X0SniP4xHf ScwkTBal7DmdebBDT72yFX1J9rwmuOCHgKRgALwljVSmqDl5UMGZaJwqLrIUaklGGuof lQT6EscnzBuBcwmOzvjuVA/OdA8cSqWVzElJY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.121.199 with SMTP id i7mr3819471vcr.8.1283324360204; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.181.136 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:59:20 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Slow "network" with additional Connector (Port) in tomcat From: Yoav Naveh To: users@tomcat.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636ef049c9f240e048f2d3c09 --001636ef049c9f240e048f2d3c09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have come across a weird behavior. I defined an additional port for my tomcat, by adding an additional connector in the server.xml The connector was placed in the same container, and the only difference was the new port. Now, when I connect to my server using the old port (80) - network time is standard. When I use the new custom port, I see much longer network time. Analyzing the network shows that the difference is that a new chunk of time is taken for "connection" and about the same time for actually working with the server. To emphasize, the connections to port 80 still works ok, just the new port on that server works slowly. Removing the port 80 connector altogether (leaving just the new one) did not help. Is there any default configuration for port 80 that should be duplicated for a new port? Any ideas would help. Thanks! --001636ef049c9f240e048f2d3c09--