Re: [Wrapper-user] RE: Disabling JVM ping

[Leif M. <le...@ta...>]

Clement,
    The messages about extending timeouts are being caused by either the
Wrapper or JVM process not receiving CPU for an extended period of time.
This can happen for a number of reasons including one or more applications
on the system consuming all the CPU.  The messages about extending
timeouts are not a problem, they are merely telling you that that other
timeouts like the ping timeout are being extended.

    The log that you sent contains lots of information about your 
application,
but unfortunately, it doesn't tell me very much about what is going on with
the Wrapper.   I know it is a pain as this is at a customer site, but 
could you
set the following properties and then send me the resulting log file?  Go
ahead and post the reply message to the list, but only send the log file 
to me
off list, no reason to post the whole thing to the list as it is a bit 
large.
Send me the full log file without any trimming.  Include two failed startups
as a service and one as a console so I can compare them.

wrapper.logfile.format=LPTM
wrapper.logfile.loglevel=DEBUG

Cheers,
Leif


Clement, Nathan wrote:

>Leif,
>
>The new configurable Java side timeout sounds like a good idea.  We haven't
>had any problems with the application in question overnight, which is
>obviously a good start.
>
>However, we have had a similar problem with another application in a
>customer's environment.  This environment seems unique in some way, because
>we can't replicate the problem in any of our test environments.  I have
>attached the log of the wrapper trying to start the JVM.  The key lines I
>saw are as follows:
>
>Wrapper Process has not received any CPU time for 52 seconds.  Extending
>timeouts.
>
>The Wrapper code did not ping the JVM for 40 seconds.  Quit and let the
>wrapper resynch.
>
>The problem occurs continually on startup - the wrapper starts the JVM, then
>the application almost starts up, and finally quits because it has not been
>pinged for 30 seconds.  The restarts occur repeatedly until the wrapper
>gives up.  I don't know why the wrapper process is not getting any CPU for
>this long - the logging on startup is not what I'd call excessive (only
>about 60k per start-up).
>
>The interesting thing is that if the wrapper is run interactively (not as a
>service), the application starts fine and continues to work without
>problems.
>
>Since this is a customer's environment, any suggestions you can provide
>would be welcome.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Nathan
>  
>