I can see cases where one might need a very short connect timeout. If your use case requires a very low fault tolerance and if you would rather fail calls than waiting for any longer than is necessary, then 1 second might not be an adequate minimum value. The characteristic would be a high-load situation where low latency (i.e. high bandwidth) is normally expected and required. For example, if one set of services is making calls to another set of services within a single network (i.e. intranet) in high volumes, then the expectation on the latency is usually very low. Normally calls should succeed within a very short amount of time. Suppose the remote services start having problems and suddenly connects and reads are taking longer. Having a short connect timeout and a short read timeout is a good way to *contain* that risk. If connect timeout can only be 1 second or longer, then there would be many situations where the problems from that remote service will quickly spread over to any calling services and have a cascading effect...
Thanks, Sangjin On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > > I had a quick question on the connect timeout... > > The connect timeout supplied to connectors is in the unit of > > seconds, and it > > appears the minimum value you can use is 1 second ( > > AbstractIoConnector.setConnectTimeout() in the case of the trunk). > > Is this > > by design? I can see cases where one needs to have a shorter connect > > timeout, but it seems it is not possible today. One solution might > > be to > > use ConnectFuture.join() with a timeout, but that works only if you > > want to > > block until it times out... > > > > It also seems that this minimum timeout value is somewhat tied to the > > timeout value used in the select() loop in the connector, which is > > hard > > coded to be 1 second. Would it be a good idea to support connect > > timeout > > values in milliseconds, and make it shorter than 1 second? > > It doesn't matter to me but I'm just curious. Why would one want a > timeout less than a second? > > > Regards, > Alan > >
