RE: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability...

[Gail R. F. <ga...@sc...>]

Hi Niall,

* I uploaded our changes as a Feature Request. Enjoy!

* We noticed the speed increase but haven't profiled it enough to give =
you
numbers. I say "significant" for our purposes, enough to be noticable by =
us
humans.

-- Gail.

-------------
Gail Rahn Frederick
ga...@sc...
503.260.0910

-----Original Message-----
From: sim...@li...
[mailto:sim...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Niall
Gallagher
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:08 AM
To: sim...@li...
Subject: Re: [Simpleweb-Support] Simple Stability...


Hi Gail,

I would really like to see your implementation using
the java.util.concurrent package. If you like you can=20
put it up on sourceforge "Feature Requests" page for
Simple. You can locate it at the following URL:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=3D500356&group_id=3D62369&func=3Dbro=
wse

Also, how much faster is the implementation with the =
java.util.concurrent
package.

Niall

--- Gail Rahn Frederick <ga...@sc...>
wrote:

> Hi Niall and everyone,
>=20
> As you know, I have been testing Simple for the past
> few weeks, trying to
> track down a TCP error that was causing my instance
> to eventually hang all
> worker threads, even under light loads.
>=20
> I previously suggested a tweak to the Socket
> configuration (setting a
> SO_LINGER timeout).
>=20
> In the end, we found spotty documentation about a
> Linux 2.4.x kernel bug
> that can cause sockets closed properly by the
> application to linger
> indefinitely in CLOSE_WAIT. Updating our Red Hat
> distribution via Red Hat
> Network (we paid for this service) resulted in the
> problem completely going
> away.
>=20
> I was more than surprised to find an OS bug to be at
> fault!
>=20
> Along the way, I replaced Niall's synchronization
> and thread-pooling code
> with the new JDK 5 constructs from the new and
> wonderful package
> java.util.concurrent. I proved that Niall's software
> was correct (because we
> saw the same deadlocks with the JDK 5 constructs,
> which have already been
> proven correct). But, the migration to
> java.util.concurrent seems to make a
> faster Simple.
>=20
> I'm happy to contribute back the port to java.util.concurrent, it=20
> simplifies the code...
>=20
> -- Gail.
>=20
> -------------
> Gail Rahn Frederick
> ga...@sc...
> 503.260.0910
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software
> Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA *
> Development Lifecycle Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects
> & Teams * Testing & QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20
> http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf=20
> _______________________________________________
> Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support
>=20


Niall Gallagher


	=09
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page=20
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs=20
=20


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO =
September
19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile =
&
Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA =
Security
* Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Simpleweb-Support mailing list Sim...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simpleweb-support