Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Server Keep-alive and timeout redesign #339

Closed
fafhrd91 opened this issue Apr 21, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Server Keep-alive and timeout redesign #339

fafhrd91 opened this issue Apr 21, 2015 · 6 comments
Labels

Comments

@fafhrd91
Copy link
Member

Right now we register keep-alive and timeout timers for each connection. And that is very expensive. Also both timers are in seconds. So instead we should use one global timer, seconds base. And manage keep-alive and timeout ourselfs.

It might be useful to use same approach for client as well.

@fafhrd91
Copy link
Member Author

I personally switched all my production systems to SO_KEEPALIVE

@fafhrd91
Copy link
Member Author

basically we should register one timer and manage callbacks in RequestHandlerFactory

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member

Pushing timer into RequestHandlerFactory sounds good.
Also I guess rename RequestHandlerFactory to ``RequestManagerfor avoiding clashes withweb-handler` term (with keeping old alias of course).

@fafhrd91
Copy link
Member Author

-1 for RequestManager, misleading name.

@asvetlov
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #702

@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Oct 29, 2019

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been
any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for
related bugs.

If you feel like there's important points made in this discussion,
please include those exceprts into that new issue.

@lock lock bot added the outdated label Oct 29, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 29, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants