> connection timeout on mod_jk side is in seconds, on tomcat side is in > milliseconds. So Mladens suggestion had a missing trailing 0 to make the > params on the two sides fit. I think he meant connectionTimeout=600000 > to make it fit the 600 on the mod_jk side.
Thanks, you are right, there was a missing zero. I'll repeat the test tomorrow with the correct value. Your explanation with the threads agrees with my observations. > Finally: from your last statement I'm not sure that I understand, what > the real problems are now: It is not a memory leak problem, even though with the growing number of threads it can grow to over 150MB, but it then stays at that level. The problem are the err=-53 conditions. While both Apache2 and Tomcat continue to run and receive and respond to incoming requests, Apache2 is unable to receive Tomcat's reponses (err=-53). Also, though Apache2 continues to serve other static pages just fine according to its access.log, the client web browser client never receives the responses. Instead, it complaints about failed connections. The only static pages the web browser was able to receive was the standard 503 error page (Service Unavailable) when attempting to access the Tomcat web service. I ended up re-starting our live server twice during the last 24 hours. > If you can easily reproduce, a mod_jk log with > JkLogLevel debug would be helpful. I'll do that tomorrow. > mod_jk error 53: the only remaining problem. Does it imply a problem on > the user side? I had our sysadmin check the hardware and network equipment today, and he also examined the Windows 2003 event logs. He couldn't find anything abnormal. J.Neuhoff -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/mod_jk-replacement--tf3050993.html#a8538992 Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
