Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 5938917
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 22, 20262026-05-22T15:45:11+00:00 2026-05-22T15:45:11+00:00

I have a web application deployed over IIS 7.0. the application is accessible by

  • 0

I have a web application deployed over IIS 7.0. the application is accessible by large number of users and manipulates large data ..my question is concerning the HTTP Keep-Alive option which is set to true by default.

is it a better approach to set the HTTP Keep-Alive to false or true.

in case of true is the good approach to use time out?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-22T15:45:11+00:00Added an answer on May 22, 2026 at 3:45 pm

    KeepAlive should normally be used to handle the requests that immediately follow an HTML request. Let’s say on the first visit to your site I get an HTML page with 5 css, 5js and 25 images, I will use my HTTP connection which is still alive to request these things (well, depends on the browser, I’ll maybe use 3 connection to speed up these things).

    To handle this fact we usually use a Keepalive of 2s or 3s. Having a longer keepalive means the connection is waiting for the next page that the user may request. This may be a valid way of thinking, next time the user will want a page, we’ll avoid to loose time establishing HTTP connection (and this can be the longest part of the request/response time). But for your server that mean most of HTTP connection that are handled by the server are doing… nothing. And you will reach your MaxConnection (W3SVC/MaxConnections with a ridiculous default to 10), with connections doing nothing. Really Bad. So long keep-alive needs big webservers and should be used only if your application really needs it.

    If you use Keepalive in a ‘classical website’ you must change the connection timeout (by default 2min). In Apache you would have 2 settings, a keepalive tiemout (5s by default) and a connection timeout (2min). In IIS seems the timeout settings is used for both. So do not set it to 2s (a client really slow in sending his request will timeout), but something like 10s is maybe enough. Now one response is to disallow Keep-Alive, and make the browser opening more connections. Another response is to use a modern webserver (like nginx or cherokee for example) which handles keep-alive connection in a more elegant and resource-free way than Apache or IIS.

    Even if you do not use Keepalive, what’s the reason of waiting 2 minutes for a client timeout? it’s is certainly too high, decrease this value to something like 60s.

    Then you should check several settings related to timeout (ConnectionTimeout, HeaderWaitTimeout, MinFileBytesPerSec) and this nice response on performances settings in the registry.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a asp.net web application which has a number of versions deployed on
I have an application deployed on Glassfish. Over time the number of loaded classes
I have a web application deployed in an internet hosting provider. This web application
I have a web application project (wap) that is successfully being deployed to a
I have a web application that should behave differently for internal users than external
I have a web application that is becoming rather large. I want to separate
I have two web application which are deployed in the same J2EE Application server.
I have web application using SpringFramework3.0.3.RELEASE, developed in Eclipse with m2eclipse plugin and deployed
I have a Groovy Web application which is NOT being deployed on Google app
I am getting this error randomly on an asp.net web application I have deployed.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.