[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9348?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15243296#comment-15243296
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on CLOUDSTACK-9348:
--------------------------------------------

Github user rafaelweingartner commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1493#discussion_r59912710
  
    --- Diff: 
utils/src/test/java/com/cloud/utils/backoff/impl/ConstantTimeBackoffTest.java 
---
    @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ public void wakeupNotExisting() {
         @Test
         public void wakeupExisting() throws InterruptedException {
             final ConstantTimeBackoff backoff = new ConstantTimeBackoff();
    -        backoff.setTimeToWait(10);
    +        backoff.setTimeToWait(1000);
    --- End diff --
    
    is it 1000 seconds or miliseconds?
    Does it need to be that high?


> CloudStack Server degrades when a lot of connections on port 8250
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CLOUDSTACK-9348
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9348
>             Project: CloudStack
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the 
> default.) 
>            Reporter: Rohit Yadav
>            Assignee: Rohit Yadav
>             Fix For: 4.9.0
>
>
> An intermittent issue was found with a large CloudStack deployment, where 
> servers could not keep agents connected on port 8250.
> All connections are handled by accept() in NioConnection:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/utils/src/main/java/com/cloud/utils/nio/NioConnection.java#L125
> A new connection is handled by accept() which does blocking SSL handshake. A 
> good fix would be to make this non-blocking and handle expensive tasks in 
> separate threads/pool. This way the main IO loop won't be blocked and can 
> continue to serve other agents/clients.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to