On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:43:13PM +0100, Axel-Stephane SMORGRAV wrote: > Hmmm. This made me think that there may not be any point in having a min for > reverse proxy backends since it seems pretty pointless to initialise n > connections that will be closed by the backend anyway 15 seconds later or > whatever the backend's keepalive timeout is, if there is no activity on said > connections...
If I could get it to connect at all, I'd be happy with the close and reopening after the keepalivetimeout expiry. (Is not it the basic timeout, actually?) In fact, using an existing, preopened connection would save the tcp handshake and optionally the more expensive ssl handshake. That is what I am after actually. But as mentioned in my previous message: even the most simple setup fails to work as advertised. regs, Christian -- Christian Folini, Swiss Post IT, Unix / Apache Engineering +41 (0)58 338 79 96 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] " from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
