Hi Patrick, On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:30:11PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > This is unfortunate. I'm guessing a lot of the issue was in ensuring the > client timeout was observed. Would it at least be possible to change the > response, so that even if the server timeout is what kills the request, > that the client gets sent back a 408 instead of a 503?
For now I have no idea. All the mess came from the awful changes that were needed to ignore the server-side timeout and pretend it came from the client despite the server triggering first. This required to mess up with these events in a very dangerous way :-( So right now I'd suggest to try with a shorter client timeout than the server timeout. I can try to see how to better *report* this specific event if needed, but I don't want to put the brown paper bag on timeouts anymore. Regards, Willy
