Msxml2.ServerXMLHTTP and Time Out
in [ASP]
|
Prev: iis
Next: Set Global Variable Within a Function
From: Evertjan. on 11 Feb 2010 18:38 NeedHelp wrote on 11 feb 2010 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: >> Because the url stream is only intermittently slow? >> [please do not quote signatures on usenet, that is "not done" on usenet. Heh, I wrot that is thas last posting too. Didn't you read that or don't you agree?] > Thank you. > > Yes, I believe you are right: A timeout gives the maximum time before > an error is raised or a default error action is done, And such timeout > does not slow down ther normal action. > However, setting timeout wont solve my problem. Why not? > I want to find why > whenever timeout error happened and run the code again immediately, > the code can run with no time. I told you, the fetching of an external stream varies in time. You cannot help the spead of that stream if that is due to the packet stream of the Internet. And it is always the first try that is slow, never the second, because if the first is all right you do not try a second one. The chance of twice slow being the square of a seldom event, so is far more seldom. > If I find the reason, Did you disprove my reasoning, or do you simply not read or like it? > I might able to set something or modify something and never let the > timeout error display on the users' browsers! If you set the timeout long enoug, the error will become lmore seldom, if my surmize is valid. Even so, you can catch errors and deal with it as you like serverside. > (The asp code is running in my web site.) Where else can your ASP-code run? -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: NeedHelp on 11 Feb 2010 21:57 On Feb 11, 11:38 pm, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...(a)interxnl.net> wrote: > NeedHelp wrote on 11 feb 2010 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: > > >> Because the url stream is only intermittently slow? > > [please do not quote signatures on usenet, that is "not done" on usenet. > Heh, I wrot that is thas last posting too. > Didn't you read that or don't you agree?] > > > Thank you. > > > Yes, I believe you are right: A timeout gives the maximum time before > > an error is raised or a default error action is done, And such timeout > > does not slow down ther normal action. > > However, setting timeout wont solve my problem. > > Why not? > > > I want to find why > > whenever timeout error happened and run the code again immediately, > > the code can run with no time. > > I told you, the fetching of an external stream varies in time. > You cannot help the spead of that stream if that is due to the packet > stream of the Internet. > > And it is always the first try that is slow, never the second, because if > the first is all right you do not try a second one. > The chance of twice slow being the square of a seldom event, so is far > more seldom. > > > If I find the reason, > > Did you disprove my reasoning, or do you simply not read or like it? > > > I might able to set something or modify something and never let the > > timeout error display on the users' browsers! > > If you set the timeout long enoug, the error will become lmore seldom, if > my surmize is valid. > > Even so, you can catch errors and deal with it as you like serverside. > > > (The asp code is running in my web site.) > > Where else can your ASP-code run? > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) I believe the page should finish all job in, say 1 second, even in a very slow and busy server. There must be something I don't know.
From: Evertjan. on 12 Feb 2010 09:45 NeedHelp wrote on 12 feb 2010 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: >> Did you disprove my reasoning, or do you simply not read or like it? >> >> > I might able to set something or modify something and never let the >> > timeout error display on the users' browsers! >> >> If you set the timeout long enoug, the error will become lmore >> seldom, if my surmize is valid. >> >> Even so, you can catch errors and deal with it as you like >> serverside. >> >> > (The asp code is running in my web site.) >> >> Where else can your ASP-code run? WHY DO YOU KEEP QUOTING SIGNATURES? > I believe the page should finish all job in, say 1 second, even in a > very slow and busy server. This is not about a statement of faith, but about facts of life. Fact of life is, that the internet is not always that fast, so if your page fetches information from another url, sometiimes that takes minutes, irrespectful if you believe it or not. Either you make the timout sufficiently large, you handle the error in an convenient way, you let things go wrong as they are, or you rebuild the internet to your believes. > There must be something I don't know. That much I know. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: Mark McGinty on 12 Feb 2010 19:47 "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort(a)interxnl.net> wrote in message news:Xns9D1D69D9D03Aeejj99(a)194.109.133.242... > NeedHelp wrote on 11 feb 2010 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: > >>> Because the url stream is only intermittently slow? >>> > > [please do not quote signatures on usenet, that is "not done" on usenet. > Heh, I wrot that is thas last posting too. > Didn't you read that or don't you agree?] Isn't there a netiquite rule about being an overly-insistent demanding little sniveler? There ought to be, but regardless, I must admit it wasn't 100% clear to me what you were on about, the first time I read it. But then again you're always on about something, which makes your nit-picks easy for me to ignore... So when you encounter non-compliance, and feel compelled to poll for the reason, you should add "didn't understand" and "don't really care" to the list of options. >> Thank you. >> >> Yes, I believe you are right: A timeout gives the maximum time before >> an error is raised or a default error action is done, And such timeout >> does not slow down ther normal action. > >> However, setting timeout wont solve my problem. > > Why not? > >> I want to find why >> whenever timeout error happened and run the code again immediately, >> the code can run with no time. > > I told you, the fetching of an external stream varies in time. > You cannot help the spead of that stream if that is due to the packet > stream of the Internet. Yes but the default timeout is 90 seconds. Unless the request is highly processor-intensive, for it to take anywhere near that long is usually indicative of at least some problem. Even if absolutely nothing else, very few users will wait that long for a web page to load, which constitutes a problem in-and-of itself. > And it is always the first try that is slow, never the second, because if > the first is all right you do not try a second one. > The chance of twice slow being the square of a seldom event, so is far > more seldom. > >> If I find the reason, > > Did you disprove my reasoning, or do you simply not read or like it? > >> I might able to set something or modify something and never let the >> timeout error display on the users' browsers! > > If you set the timeout long enoug, the error will become lmore seldom, if > my surmize is valid. > > Even so, you can catch errors and deal with it as you like serverside. > >> (The asp code is running in my web site.) > > Where else can your ASP-code run? Well, I run ASP code on my workstation pretty often, but that's not important. Since the original question involved ServerXMLHTTP, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the ASP code to which the OP referred, is that being called by ServerXMLHTTP. (This assumption adds infinite relevance, and subtracts that statement-of-the-obvious quality that apparently drew your sarcasm, don't you think?) To the OP, you are aware that calls to ServerXMLHTTP must not send requests to the same virtual server on which the calling script is executing, correct? IOW, the script http://www.myserver.com/xmlhttpcaller.asp must not reference any other ASP script on www.myserver.com when calling XMLHTTP. Doing so can deadlock the script engine. Even calling an XML source on a different virtual but same physical server can cause issues, depending on app pools, isolation settings, threading models of COM objects being used, etc. So if this is all running on the same server box, I strongly suspect some sort of deadlock is intermittently occurring. Timeout (like any other error) terminates the request, which frees-up whatever resource is in contention, paving the way for the next request to succeed as normal. A telling test would be, next time the page that calls XMLHTTP takes longer than a few seconds to complete, open the same page in another browser. If that one hangs too, you've almost certainly got a deadlock on your hands. Another diagnostic approach might be to set the timeout for the ASP page that renders the XML to something very short (like 2x or 3x max amount of time it should ever take to complete.) Then code the caller to check status/eat errors/etc and retry a few times upon failure. (By default both the caller and callee will timeout almost silmultaneously, but it doesn't have to be that way.) Note that I'm not suggesting this for production code, only for diagnostics. -Mark > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) [If you don't want it quoted back, don't append it to your posts.]
From: Evertjan. on 13 Feb 2010 03:19
Mark McGinty wrote on 13 feb 2010 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: > > "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort(a)interxnl.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9D1D69D9D03Aeejj99(a)194.109.133.242... >> NeedHelp wrote on 11 feb 2010 in >> microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general: >> >>>> Because the url stream is only intermittently slow? >>>> >> >> [please do not quote signatures on usenet, that is "not done" on >> usenet. Heh, I wrot that is thas last posting too. >> Didn't you read that or don't you agree?] > > Isn't there a netiquite rule about being an overly-insistent demanding > little sniveler? There ought to be, but regardless, I must admit it > wasn't 100% clear to me what you were on about, the first time I read > it. But then again you're always on about something, which makes your > nit-picks easy for me to ignore... So when you encounter > non-compliance, and feel compelled to poll for the reason, you should > add "didn't understand" and "don't really care" to the list of > options. Ignoring my request to adhere to Netiquette urged met to be more insistent, and it seems it worked as you feel insulted, which wasn't the intention but could be a useful by-product. [..] >>> (The asp code is running in my web site.) >> >> Where else can your ASP-code run? > > Well, I run ASP code on my workstation pretty often, You musst mean p.c. You can only do that if you install a local server on your p.c., in the case of classic ASP IIS, and so having a virtual website. "infinite relevance" ? > but that's not important. This whole tread is not important. Should NG threads be important? > Since the original question involved ServerXMLHTTP, I'm > going to go out on a limb and assume the ASP code to which the OP > referred, is that being called by ServerXMLHTTP. > (This assumption > adds infinite relevance, and subtracts that statement-of-the-obvious > quality that apparently drew your sarcasm, don't you think?) I don't. Why schould it substract? The felt sarcasm is only your opinion, not my intention. In discussion, showing obviousness is normal. [..] >> -- >> Evertjan. >> The Netherlands. >> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) > > [If you don't want it quoted back, don't append it to your posts.] What nonsene, so I should offend against Netiquette, by not using a proper signature, because you don't want to abide to it? Any good newsreader will automagically strip the signature, so using such help you to abide. > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.3959 Not so your Outlook Express, it seems, but then that is not a proper newsreader. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) |