|
Hello,
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Paul Baker wrote:
> Joseph Mack wrote:
>
> > Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> >>There are other dangerous settings, for example,
> >>Timeout 300.
> >>
> >
> > What's the danger here?
> >
> > I have a web site that generates maps. If the client
> > asks for a high resolution map, it takes about 25mins to
> > generate. I need a timeout at least this long (incase
> > anyone else is running a job on the server at the same time)
> >
>
>
> The KeepAliveTimeout value is NOT the connection time out. That value
>
> says how long Apache will keep an active connection open waiting for a
> new request to come on the SAME connection after it has fulfilled a
> request. Setting this to 15 seconds does not mean apache cuts all
> connections after 15 seconds.
>
> I write server load-testing software so I have do quiet a bit of
> research in the behaviour of each browser. If Netscape hits a page with
> a lot of images on it, it will usually open about 8 connections. It will
> use these 8 connections to download things as quickly as it can. If the
> server cuts each connection after 1 request is fullfilled, then Netscape
> browser has to keep reconnecting. This costs a lot of time. KeepAlive is
> a GOOD THING. Netscape does close the connections when it is done with
> them which will be well before the 15 seconds since the last request expire.
>
> Think of KeepAliveTimeout as being like an Idle Timeout in FTP. Imagine
> it being set to 15 seconds. There...now you get it.
But we are talking about "Timeout 300" !?!?
> --
> =======================================================================
> Paul J. Baker Internet Systems Technician
> pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Where2GetIt.com
> phone 847-498-0111x234
> fax 847-480-7422
> =======================================================================
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
