https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #32 from Chuck Caldarale 2012-02-13
20:41:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> (In reply to comment #30)
> > Where do we set the startStopThreads parameter value?
>
> In the component:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #31 from Christopher Schultz
2012-02-13 20:24:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Where do we set the startStopThreads parameter value?
In the component:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/engine.html
Please u
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #30 from Leslie 2012-02-13 07:31:36 UTC
---
Where do we set the startStopThreads parameter value?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: -
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #29 from Guido Leenders 2011-12-04
23:00:39 UTC ---
Some experience figures for 24 contents of which 12 are heavy applications:
* original startup time with 7.0.21: 280 seconds
* with startStopThreads="16": 30 seconds
Thank
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27772|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27769|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #25 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-13 23:04:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Re: startStopExecutor.allowCoreThreadTimeOut(true);
>
> I think that just using "0" instead of getStartStopThreadsInternal() as the
> value of first a
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #24 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-13 15:01:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> With core pool size set to "0" in ContainerBase#initInternal I get no
> concurrency at startup. It will be sequential only. If I change it back to
>
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #23 from Felix Schumacher
2011-10-13 14:41:42 UTC ---
With core pool size set to "0" in ContainerBase#initInternal I get no
concurrency at startup. It will be sequential only. If I change it back to
startStopExecutor = new
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #22 from Felix Schumacher
2011-10-13 13:42:01 UTC ---
In ContainerBase#initInternal the ThreadPoolExecutor gets initialized with a
core pool size of "0", but if we call ContainerBase#setStartStopThreads core
pool size gets set
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27767|0 |1
is obsolete|
On 13/10/2011 13:10, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2011/10/13 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> In one place Future is used, while I think it could be Future like
>>> in
>>> other places.
>>
>> That is the difference between a callable and runnable and I think it is
>> correct. At least I see errors if I try us
2011/10/13 Mark Thomas :
>
>> In one place Future is used, while I think it could be Future like
>> in
>> other places.
>
> That is the difference between a callable and runnable and I think it is
> correct. At least I see errors if I try using Future there.
Do you need Runnable in DeployDescrip
On 13/10/2011 12:32, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
>
> --- Comment #19 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-13
> 11:32:13 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #18)
>> Created attachment 27767 [details]
>
> Re: startStopExecutor.allowCoreThreadTimeOut
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #20 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-13
11:40:13 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Created attachment 27767 [details]
Re: HostConfig, one more:
-hostConfig.deployWar=Deploying web application archive {0}
The above messa
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #19 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-13
11:32:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Created attachment 27767 [details]
Re: startStopExecutor.allowCoreThreadTimeOut(true);
I think that just using "0" instead of getStartStopThr
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27761|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #17 from Felix Schumacher
2011-10-12 08:45:45 UTC ---
The HashMap HostConfig#deployed is used by multiple threads, but is not
synchronized.
So there could be problems, even if I haven't seen any yet.
We could either wrap it us
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #16 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-11
20:32:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> There is a new Digester release (3.0), but I have no idea whether it would
> significantly improve speed
>From threading point of view it is s
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #15 from Pid 2011-10-11 18:05:57 UTC ---
There is a new Digester release (3.0), but I have no idea whether it would
significantly improve speed and I suspect it's incompatible so could require
non-trivial modifications elsewhere
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27758|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #13 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-11 15:17:17 UTC ---
I've fixed the +/- issue locally and will include that in the next version of
the patch. Thanks Konstantin for the catch.
Felix, I think you have found one of the places where it
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Felix Schumacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27759|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
Felix Schumacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27755|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #10 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-11
13:48:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
+// Zero == Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors()
+// -ve == Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() - value
+//
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #9 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-11 13:39:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27758
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27758
Threaded start, stop and deployment fo Contexts
This proposed patch (against trunk) provi
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-11 11:02:10 UTC ---
I'm currently working on combining these two patches into a complete solution
that covers multi-threaded deployment, and container start and stop.
--
Configure bugmail: https://i
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Jung 2011-10-10 18:05:29
UTC ---
Hi Felix,
don't want to split hairs or paint bikesheds but the attribute name seems
problematic: in TC 7 we call "parallel deployment" the possibility to serve
multiple versions
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #6 from Felix Schumacher
2011-10-10 17:42:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 27755
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27755
starting contexts in parallel using an executor
While this patch is not really for
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-09 16:31:14 UTC ---
A few comments on the patch.
1. Consider allowing the number of threads to be used to be configured
(probably as a attribute of the host).
2. Webapp start/stop time can vary wide
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #4 from Pid 2010-11-30 01:41:00 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I can confirm my patch still works on Tomcat 6.0.29
Would the java.util.concurrency package not provide a more elegant way of
solving this problem?
--
Configu
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #3 from Joe Kislo 2010-11-29 15:14:59
EST ---
I can confirm my patch still works on Tomcat 6.0.29
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: -
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #2 from Joe Kislo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-21 09:04:50 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=22912)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22912)
Proposed patch
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apac
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46264
--- Comment #1 from Joe Kislo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-21 09:04:01 PST ---
I propose that during the context shutdown, tomcat use multiple threads to
shutdown the contexts in parallel.
I have attached a patch which will fire off:
2
35 matches
Mail list logo
