16

I trying to make a call to a very heavy duty process. It's average work length is estimated by 9-10 minutes.

When I'm executing the process, I set the timeout for a ridiculously huge number: 99999999.

After 2 minutes, I get the following error:

java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out

I tried to mess with it some more, and I set the timeout to 3000, and after 3 seconds as anticipated I got the same error.

Do you have any idea on why socket.setSoTimeout(99999999) sets it to 120000 max?

Improve this question
6
  • 3
    This method passes to the OS so the behaviour of this method depends on your OS. Which version of the OS are you using? Commented Sep 13, 2012 at 12:53
  • 1
    Have you tried sending keep-alive messages or have the process "call" you back when it's completed instead of keeping a socket open for ages? Commented Sep 13, 2012 at 12:53
  • 1
    It seems the OS just rejects your value because if it is out of range. I would try playing with higher values but not so high (you are setting it to more than 27 hours). v.g., 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes. Commented Sep 13, 2012 at 13:01
  • 1
    If you don't want a time-out, I would try not setting it rather than setting it very high. Commented Sep 13, 2012 at 13:02
  • I set it to 3 minutes, still after 2 minutes i get an exception Commented Sep 13, 2012 at 13:45

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

I had the same problem and the solution was not use socket.shutdownInput(); socket.shutDownOutput(); until the last time of reading or writing data to the socket. This made the socket go to FIN_WAIT state thus waiting 2 minutes before closing. You can read more about it in this post

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

5 Comments

This technique cannot possibly solve a read timeout exception.
If you took the time to run my test case you would have seen that this is the solution. and you can try it your self, write some inputs to a socket and use shutdownInput and you will see that the socket will change to FIN_WAIT state. wait 2 minutes and you will see that the socket is closed.
Shutting down a socket has no effect on read timeouts. Shutting down the other end might, but so would sending something. This does not address the question: "why socket.setSoTimeout(99999999) sets it to 120000 max?"
The "socket.setSoTimeout(99999999) sets it to 120000 max" is just a side effect. Let say you created a socket and connected to the other end, you can see with netstat -na| find "portnumber" that the socket is in ESTABLISHED state. Now send some input and use shutdownInput you will see that the socket state turn to CLOSE_WAIT. Again, if you would have run my test case in my post you could have seen this yourself.
The "socket.setSoTimeout(99999999) sets it to 120000 max" is the problem. Shutting down the socket does indeed change the port state, and send a FIN, and cause an EOS condition at the reader, but it doesn't change the read timeout. You don't have to run test cases to know that.
2

Clearly you aren't setting the timeout you think you're setting, or someone else is changing it afterwards. You'll have to post some code to get further elucidation.

Note that according to W.R. Stevens in TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol II, #17.4, the timeout is held in a short as a number of 1000Hz ticks, so a timeout beyond 11 minutes isn't possible. This applies to the BSD code.

Improve this answer

Comments

1

I'm not sure how your application works, but try to set an infinite timeout to the socket

public void setSoTimeout(int timeout)
              throws SocketException

Enable/disable SO_TIMEOUT with the specified timeout, in milliseconds. With this option set to a non-zero timeout, a read() call on the InputStream associated with this Socket will block for only this amount of time. If the timeout expires, a java.net.SocketTimeoutException is raised, though the Socket is still valid. The option must be enabled prior to entering the blocking operation to have effect. The timeout must be > 0. A timeout of zero is interpreted as an infinite timeout.

If you provide more information about your call, i may improve the answer.

Improve this answer

6 Comments

I tried setting the time out to 0. (which supposed to be infinite time) but again, after 120 seconds it throws an exception.
While you are connected, does the buffer reads any data at all? i mean, is the server responding to your connection?, because there is a chance that the server address is not resolved correctly in your network, i don't know if it's local, or a vpn, or just a remote server, i don't know if the adress is resolved using a netbios query, or the host file, or a remote dns, there are lots of elements that can lead to the wrong address
the server is local, when i'm setting the heavy duty process to take less than 2 minutes it works just fine.
Is there any application container that might be overwriting your connection timeout with the default timeout, like Websphere, apache tomcat or jboss in the server or the client side? if so, you should check the enviroment's configuration
fer13488, nope no containers whatsoever.
|

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.