You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Jacob Hilker <hi...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/13 21:41:33 UTC
Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
Hi All,
While helping set up a local instance of rave on one of my co-workers
machines, we ran into an issue where using mvn cargo:start was taking
longer than 3 minutes, the default timeout, and thus failing.
The fix was simple enough, as we just up'ed the timeout period, and as
such, he successfully deployed rave in approximately 4.5 minutes.
However this raises the question of if a preemptive fix for other new users
should be added to the rave codebase, upping the default timeout period to
5 minutes, or even higher? I'm sure there will be other users with slower
than average machines attempting to deploy rave.
rave-portal/pom.xml line 195: <timeout>180000</timeout>
Thanks,
Jacob Hilker
Re: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
Posted by Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Would it be better to use mvn cargo:run? This may need an upgrade to
cargo.
Marlon
On 4/13/12 3:41 PM, Jacob Hilker wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While helping set up a local instance of rave on one of my
> co-workers machines, we ran into an issue where using mvn
> cargo:start was taking longer than 3 minutes, the default timeout,
> and thus failing.
>
> The fix was simple enough, as we just up'ed the timeout period, and
> as such, he successfully deployed rave in approximately 4.5
> minutes.
>
> However this raises the question of if a preemptive fix for other
> new users should be added to the rave codebase, upping the default
> timeout period to 5 minutes, or even higher? I'm sure there will
> be other users with slower than average machines attempting to
> deploy rave.
>
> rave-portal/pom.xml line 195: <timeout>180000</timeout>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacob Hilker
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPiIlPAAoJEEfVXEODPFIDtBMIAICYOvgCMq3IDle8Y+HOSd6p
Y4aymH5MUpAt+S1rjFdGyUfrfgAp9ct3HdhDoJtHB2izggLSePzGAY7x0Xh+EFDP
eHLtUixLLvaBZugyD/nRLpfeCi4L8E0CusO/t0xjXg4hXjzifuJ1LiQ0gkaFZkpS
YW5/vBln8/OD4o+6a4CHmHFI2cqXLhEhCdt53Lkx5V2G8pSjXXIPL7eH6RCPU4e0
IyWSiPPmB2n4AytM3mCUt6/fsyY4yEPdMAJXQI6y5cGxZP/0Uza+gZfXW9RJYrMi
xFLYZYz/pjbn4BX/t735K7Ol6Tj94MUFoU5wTc4xbIvbT3H0h9IkI0dpAJjx6mg=
=LwoZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
Posted by "Ciancetta, Jesse E." <jc...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jasha Joachimsthal [mailto:j.joachimsthal@onehippo.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:29 AM
>To: dev@rave.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
>
>On 16 April 2012 14:21, Ciancetta, Jesse E. <jc...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jacob Hilker [mailto:hilker.j@gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:42 PM
>> >To: dev@rave.apache.org
>> >Subject: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
>> >
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >While helping set up a local instance of rave on one of my co-workers
>> >machines, we ran into an issue where using mvn cargo:start was taking
>> >longer than 3 minutes, the default timeout, and thus failing.
>> >
>> >The fix was simple enough, as we just up'ed the timeout period, and as
>> >such, he successfully deployed rave in approximately 4.5 minutes.
>>
>> Do you know what it was that was taking so long to initialize?
>>
>> That seems like a really long time for a webapp to initialize -- maybe we
>> could change something to shorten the time it takes?
>>
>
>I can imagine it takes a long time the first time when you haven't used
>cargo before and need to download the maven plugin + dependencies over a
>slow connection. Is it faster the second time?
>Do you have a virusscanner that checks what happens in the local maven
>repository and the rave checkout? This may also slow down the startup.
>From what Jacob described it doesn't sound like the maven dependency downloads are the problem -- those would all happen before the cargo deployer tries to fire up tomcat. It sounds like there is something in the actual webapp initialization that was taking 4+ minutes.
Actually -- thinking about it a little more -- I wonder if there could have been a proxy configuration issue and it took 4+ minutes for some HTTP request for a resource on the internet to timeout?
>Jasha
>
>
>>
>> >However this raises the question of if a preemptive fix for other new
>> users
>> >should be added to the rave codebase, upping the default timeout period
>to
>> >5 minutes, or even higher? I'm sure there will be other users with slower
>> >than average machines attempting to deploy rave.
>> >
>> >rave-portal/pom.xml line 195: <timeout>180000</timeout>
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >Jacob Hilker
>>
Re: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
Posted by Jasha Joachimsthal <j....@onehippo.com>.
On 16 April 2012 14:21, Ciancetta, Jesse E. <jc...@mitre.org> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jacob Hilker [mailto:hilker.j@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:42 PM
> >To: dev@rave.apache.org
> >Subject: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >While helping set up a local instance of rave on one of my co-workers
> >machines, we ran into an issue where using mvn cargo:start was taking
> >longer than 3 minutes, the default timeout, and thus failing.
> >
> >The fix was simple enough, as we just up'ed the timeout period, and as
> >such, he successfully deployed rave in approximately 4.5 minutes.
>
> Do you know what it was that was taking so long to initialize?
>
> That seems like a really long time for a webapp to initialize -- maybe we
> could change something to shorten the time it takes?
>
I can imagine it takes a long time the first time when you haven't used
cargo before and need to download the maven plugin + dependencies over a
slow connection. Is it faster the second time?
Do you have a virusscanner that checks what happens in the local maven
repository and the rave checkout? This may also slow down the startup.
Jasha
>
> >However this raises the question of if a preemptive fix for other new
> users
> >should be added to the rave codebase, upping the default timeout period to
> >5 minutes, or even higher? I'm sure there will be other users with slower
> >than average machines attempting to deploy rave.
> >
> >rave-portal/pom.xml line 195: <timeout>180000</timeout>
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Jacob Hilker
>
RE: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
Posted by "Ciancetta, Jesse E." <jc...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jacob Hilker [mailto:hilker.j@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:42 PM
>To: dev@rave.apache.org
>Subject: Default tomcat6x timeout too low?
>
>Hi All,
>
>While helping set up a local instance of rave on one of my co-workers
>machines, we ran into an issue where using mvn cargo:start was taking
>longer than 3 minutes, the default timeout, and thus failing.
>
>The fix was simple enough, as we just up'ed the timeout period, and as
>such, he successfully deployed rave in approximately 4.5 minutes.
Do you know what it was that was taking so long to initialize?
That seems like a really long time for a webapp to initialize -- maybe we could change something to shorten the time it takes?
>However this raises the question of if a preemptive fix for other new users
>should be added to the rave codebase, upping the default timeout period to
>5 minutes, or even higher? I'm sure there will be other users with slower
>than average machines attempting to deploy rave.
>
>rave-portal/pom.xml line 195: <timeout>180000</timeout>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jacob Hilker