Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D3F5919D for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 40909 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jan 2012 21:27:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 40846 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jan 2012 21:27:31 -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 40832 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jan 2012 21:27:31 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:27:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aw@ice-sa.com designates 212.85.38.228 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.85.38.228] (HELO tor.combios.es) (212.85.38.228) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:27:22 +0000 Received: from [192.168.245.129] (p549E0906.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.158.9.6]) by tor.combios.es (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DAA55DA01B2 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:27:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F0372A3.90009@ice-sa.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:26:59 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Warnier?= Reply-To: Tomcat Users List User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: 7.0.22+ fd leak with APR/native References: <4F037086.8020901@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4F037086.8020901@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Mark Thomas wrote: > I am trying to bring together all the information I have gleaned on this > so far from the multiple threads to try and find the common factors. > > So far I have: > - 7.0.21 is OK > - 7.0.22 has an fd leak > - 7.0.23 has an fd leak and may leak faster than 7.0.22 > - occurs with APR/native > - does not occur with BIO > - has been observed in HTTP & HTTPS > - use of Comet does not trigger it > - use of compression does not trigger it > - separate connection and keep-alive timeouts does not trigger it > > It may be related to POST processing. > > I have tried (and so far failed) to reproduce this. I'll be looking at > POST processing next. In the meantime, here are some further questions > to try and narrow things down: > > 1. Does the application where this is observed make use of Servlet 3.0 > async requests? > > 2. Does this leak occur when the NIO connector is used? > > 3. Are there any exceptions in the logs that weren't present in 7.0.21 > or earlier? > > 4. Does the leak occur if sendfile is disabled? > > I also have reviewing the 7.0.21 to 7.0.22 changes on my todo list but > there are quite a few as I was refactoring the connectors to reduce code > duplication and ironically, reduce maintenance requirements, at the time. > Suggestion: the "large POST requests" mentioned by a couple of posters suggest file uploads, which may imply temporary files used to buffer the files being uploaded, no ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org