On 01.09.2013 05:28, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> OK, this is what started the whole problem and a dive into the wrong
> direction of serializing everything in the proxy server. Indeed, a long
> time ago Lukasz and I discussed whether the client should close idle
> connections and I said why bother, it would simplify the code by just
> allowing the server to do it. While that was the right response for
> standard client jobs it was wrong for long-lived servers that act like
> clients (i.e. proxy server). First, the server-side timeout is set off
> by default. You need to enable it and few people do as it rarely causes
> a problem (sites with badly behaving VM hypervisors normally turn the
> timeout on). Second, I didn't consider the side-effect on the proxy
> server. So, what to do? I suspect the only real solution to this issue
> is to implement an idle timeout in the new client. It's likely that we
> would need two timeouts (just like in the old client) -- one for
> redirectors (a longish timeout) and one for servers (a shortisj
> timeout). The actual values would be controlled by some "envar".
>
> Lukasz, what's the possibility of adding this?
This is now done. Alja, Matevz, could you please test it and tell me
if this works for you?
Cheers,
Lukasz
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1
