"... A web app can time out after 20 minutes of inactivity. Only requests to the scm (deployment) site or to the web app's pages in the portal reset the timer. Requests to the actual site don't reset the timer."
IIUC, the statement above suggests that my web app will always time out after 20 minutes since deployment or first hit, unless I use the SCM or the portal, since users hitting my app do not reset the counter?
If this is based on the IIS's applicationPool idleTimeout setting then it should be the other way around, shouldn't it?
⚠Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.
@martin77s Always on is similar concept to idleTimeout but it is not exactly the same. Always on directs a HTTP request to the root of your site every 5 minutes in order to keep your site warm. If you require to keep your site warm, we suggest turning on always on in order to ensure that the first page load of your site is responsive.
We will now proceed to close this thread. If there are further questions regarding this matter, please tag me in your reply. We will gladly continue the discussion and we will reopen the issue.
@martin77s After rereading your post, I see you are more concerned about the accuracy of the doc statement rather than how to ensure your site always stays warm.
As a result, I have assigned @cephalin, the doc author, to take another look at this to see if the doc should be clarified.
We already recommend using the Always On setting to prevent timeout. I'm not sure what needs to be updated from a documentation perspective.
@ggailey777
IMO, the documentation should be:
"... A web app can time out after 20 minutes of inactivity. Requests to the scm (deployment) site or to the web app's pages in the portal do not reset the timer. Only requests to the actual site reset the timer."
and not the other way around, as it currently states.
Hi @BryanTrach-MSFT - Our changes will be published today (https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs-pr/pull/55336). Can you please assign to me and close?
@martin77s Thank you for your feedback!
@martin77s We will now proceed to close this thread. If there are further questions regarding this matter, please tag me in your reply. We will gladly continue the discussion and we will reopen the issue.
Most helpful comment
@ggailey777
IMO, the documentation should be:
and not the other way around, as it currently states.