On 3/28/18 11:29 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Phil,
>
> On 3/27/18 1:03 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > On 3/26/18 10:28 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> >> Shawn,
> >>
> >> On 3/25/18 12:17 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> >>> On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Regarding your configuration:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Shawn,
On 3/27/18 8:41 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> So now I have one person telling me that removeAbandoned DOES
> close connections, and another saying that it does NOT close
> connections. Is there a conflict here, or are both of these
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Phil,
On 3/27/18 1:03 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/26/18 10:28 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> Shawn,
>>
>> On 3/25/18 12:17 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Regarding your configuration: >>>
On 3/27/18 5:41 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 11:03 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Not exactly, if what you are using is the DBCP pool. To see the
> The factory in use right now is
> "org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory". Information
> gathered previously in this thread told
On 3/27/2018 11:03 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Not exactly, if what you are using is the DBCP pool. To see the
The factory in use right now is
"org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory". Information
gathered previously in this thread told me that this is DBCP code,
repackaged into the
On 3/26/18 10:28 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> On 3/25/18 12:17 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> > On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> Regarding your configuration: >> auth="Container"
> >> factory="org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory"
> >>
On 26.03.2018 23:36, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 3/26/2018 2:39 PM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
Just a question, more to satisfy my curiosity : when you have these
hundreds of "pending" connections, in what state are they, TCP/IP-wise ?
Not sure where you got "pending". I don't recall
On 3/26/2018 2:39 PM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
> Just a question, more to satisfy my curiosity : when you have these
> hundreds of "pending" connections, in what state are they, TCP/IP-wise ?
Not sure where you got "pending". I don't recall mentioning anything
like that.
The TCP state is
Hi.
A question at the end.
On 26.03.2018 22:01, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 3/26/2018 11:28 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
The pool doesn't kill abandoned connections. It simply removes them
from the pool. Otherwise, you're right: you'd have torches and
pitchforks everywhere.
That is a key piece
On 3/26/2018 11:28 AM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> The pool doesn't kill abandoned connections. It simply removes them
> from the pool. Otherwise, you're right: you'd have torches and
> pitchforks everywhere.
That is a key piece of information. And it should have perhaps been
obvious from the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Shawn,
On 3/25/18 12:17 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Regarding your configuration: > auth="Container"
>> factory="org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory"
>>
Hi Shawn,
only some aspects answered for now, inline:
On 25.03.2018 19:31, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 3/25/2018 3:15 AM, Olaf Kock wrote:
* Liferay comes (optionally) bundled with Tomcat to ease
installation, however, the tomcat in there will be your own and is up
to you to upgrade. Yes, new
On 3/25/2018 3:15 AM, Olaf Kock wrote:
* Liferay comes (optionally) bundled with Tomcat to ease installation,
however, the tomcat in there will be your own and is up to you to
upgrade. Yes, new versions of Liferay will come with new versions of
Tomcat, but new versions of Liferay won't be
On 24.03.2018 05:08, Shawn Heisey wrote:
This message is long. Lots of details, a fair amount of history.
The primary Tomcat version we've got is 7.0.42. Specifically, it is
the Tomcat that's included with Liferay 6.2. This is why we haven't
attempted an upgrade even though the version
On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Regarding your configuration:
Generally, that looks OK but I'd strongly recommend that you use
"autoReconnect=false" in the URL. autoReconnect is known to be
problematic with connection pools.
The removeAbandonedTimeout looks low but if all the queries
On 3/24/2018 5:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
There are two pools available.
org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool.DataSourceFactory is a different pool
developed in the Tomcat project (generally called JDBC pool).
OK, so that means that the currently active config is using dbcp. The
*new* config that
On 24/03/18 22:28, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> The factory we have now is
> "org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory". The factory in
> the documentation, and what I put in the configuration I'm building, is
> "org.apache.tomcat.jdbc.pool.DataSourceFactory". These are both in the
> tomcat
On 3/24/2018 3:34 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Before we go too far, you have said:
1. You have 5 prod servers
2. They have several pools defined
3. The above is an example of a defined pool
Just above, that configuration says maxActive=60. 5 * 60 = 300
connections. And that's just for one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Shawn,
On 3/24/18 12:08 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> This message is long. Lots of details, a fair amount of history.
Thanks for the back-story and the configurations. It really helps
explain what is going on.
> Here's a redacted configuration that
On 3/24/2018 5:36 AM, Filippo Machi wrote:
Hello Shawn, about this question, are you sure that none of the webapps
running on those tomcats are connecting to the database without using the
pools configured in the context.xml? Creating other pools or performing
direct connections? That could
*1) I think this is the really burning question in my mind: Why is the
server opening NEW connections when there are dozens of them already open?
Does this mean that (as I suspect) all those connections are abandoned? If
so, why are they not getting cleaned up, when we have removeAbandoned set
to
21 matches
Mail list logo
