mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: connect timeout
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:07:11 GMT
On Feb 11, 2008 1:41 AM, Mike Heath <mheath@apache.org> wrote:

> I would have to give Sangjin's arguments a +0.  I think he makes some
> good points but I don't think I would say that support sub-second
> timeouts is _critical_ until people start asking for it.
>

I think Sangjin and I are asking for it :-).  I have a need for this.  Why
not just enable more resolution and leave it up to the user to decide based
on their specific need.

Alex


> Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > This was well put Sangjin. After reading this I realized that may
> > deployments of AHC will have similar needs: sub-second timeouts are
> > critical.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2008 7:10 PM, Sangjin Lee <sjlee0@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I can see cases where one might need a very short connect timeout.  If
> >> your
> >> use case requires a very low fault tolerance and if you would rather
> fail
> >> calls than waiting for any longer than is necessary, then 1 second
> might
> >> not
> >> be an adequate minimum value.  The characteristic would be a high-load
> >> situation where low latency (i.e. high bandwidth) is normally expected
> and
> >> required.
> >> For example, if one set of services is making calls to another set of
> >> services within a single network (i.e. intranet) in high volumes, then
> the
> >> expectation on the latency is usually very low.  Normally calls should
> >> succeed within a very short amount of time.  Suppose the remote
> services
> >> start having problems and suddenly connects and reads are taking
> longer.
> >>  Having a short connect timeout and a short read timeout is a good way
> to
> >> *contain* that risk.  If connect timeout can only be 1 second or
> longer,
> >> then there would be many situations where the problems from that remote
> >> service will quickly spread over to any calling services and have a
> >> cascading effect...
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sangjin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 9, 2008 12:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I had a quick question on the connect timeout...
> >>>> The connect timeout supplied to connectors is in the unit of
> >>>> seconds, and it
> >>>> appears the minimum value you can use is 1 second (
> >>>> AbstractIoConnector.setConnectTimeout() in the case of the trunk).
> >>>> Is this
> >>>> by design?  I can see cases where one needs to have a shorter connect
> >>>> timeout, but it seems it is not possible today.  One solution might
> >>>> be to
> >>>> use ConnectFuture.join() with a timeout, but that works only if you
> >>>> want to
> >>>> block until it times out...
> >>>>
> >>>> It also seems that this minimum timeout value is somewhat tied to the
> >>>> timeout value used in the select() loop in the connector, which is
> >>>> hard
> >>>> coded to be 1 second.  Would it be a good idea to support connect
> >>>> timeout
> >>>> values in milliseconds, and make it shorter than 1 second?
> >>> It doesn't matter to me but I'm just curious.  Why would one want a
> >>> timeout less than a second?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message