Skip to content

HTML timeout

FerrymanFerryman
in Need Help
I've been browsing through the forums in search of threads about html timeout like this one https://forum.gsa-online.de/discussion/1511/proxies-html-timeout-threads-max-efficiency/ Up to now I've had the html timeout set to 45 on public proxies, increased it to 100 now after having started to read the thread. Do you have any experience if it will make any difference in terms of LpM?
Tagged:

Comments

  • FerrymanFerryman
    edited February 2014
    ok, just got 10 semi-private proxies and set the timeout to 120. Getting about 200% of the speed than I had before.
  • Trevor_BanduraTrevor_Bandura 267,647 NEW GSA SER Verified List
    I have mine @180
  • ronron SERLists.com

    120 gets you faster results, and slightly less verified. 180 gets you slightly more verified, but at a slower rate.

    So you test to see which will do better for you. Try it 24 hours at a time. It depends on your rig. Some don't have the capacity to handle 180 very well as you are hanging onto a website for 3 minutes per thread.

  • JamPackedSpamJamPackedSpam
    Okay I have a silly question since this got brought up. It's something I definitely should have learned long ago when I first started using spam bots. Does the HTML timeout mean that for each thread/connection, the program will wait xxx seconds on that particular thread before it moves on to a new target? So if you have a bunch of slow or dead targets, having an extremely long HTML timeout can really slow down everything since the program can get bottle-necked by slow sites occupying the long HTML timeouts.
  • ronron SERLists.com

    Correct. It is my understanding that is the time required to "make the handshake" with the other website's server. So it would be a completed connection. If it is not complete in that amount of time, SER moves on.

    So your analysis about bottlenecks is correct. However, some rigs have more bandwidth, RAM, etc. So one user can get destroyed with 180 timeout, while another user has zero issues. That's why I said to test.

  • FerrymanFerryman
    edited February 2014
    Would be nice to know which. But either way - Waiting 3 minutes for a page to start loading is a crapton of time. Waiting 3 minutes for it to finish is a lot too. I get the impression that if you need such a long timeout you're doing too many threads, but trying to find out if there is a difference between low thread and low timeout and high thread and high timeout without the impact of switching from public to private. thanks ron :)
  • JamPackedSpamJamPackedSpam
    Yeah, 180 seconds timeout does seem a bit high if speed is your goal. The most I would care to wait without slowing down SER would be 20-30 seconds. Why do we set the timeouts so high? Just to get a bit more successful links since these sites are all getting hammered 24/7 and are inherently slow? I'm going to test my contextual lists using a 10 second HTML timeout and 180 timeout and see what happens.
  • FerrymanFerryman
    Ya, it's the handshake as per GSA info text below the checkbox.
Sign In or Register to comment.