Yes, this is a typo. It should by 5.
Here is a verbatim paste of the statement we are using:
private static final int TIMEOUT = 5*60*1000; // read() timeout in ms
;-)
Tal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn McMurdo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug 1006, what's next ?
>
>
>
> Tal Dayan wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Yes, we tested the timeout patch all day yesterday with a
> production system
> > with real users and normal load and
> > all the hanging threads and connections was cleaned up perfectly (we are
> > using 'netstat' to
> > get the number of HTTP connections and 'ps' to get the number
> of thread and
> > all is graphed around the clock by MRTG). We are running with a
> relatively
> > timeout of 5 minutes (50*60*1000) just to be on the safe side
> but a shorter
> > one can be used.
>
> Is 50 just a typo? Did you mean 5*60*1000?
> Just thought I'd mention it in case it affects your testing.
> Shawn
>
> --
> Shawn McMurdo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lutris Technologies http://www.lutris.com
> Enhydra.Org http://www.enhydra.org
>
>
>
