Thanks for the response.
The below suggestion to make an SP call worked out.
Another update on programmatic registering the pool to jmx - It worked out
and here is how I did it
MBeanServer mBeanServer =
ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer();
try {
tomcatDataSource.createPool();
mBeanServer.registerMBean(tomcatDataSource.getPool().getJmxPool(), new
ObjectName("tomcat.jdbc:type=ConnectionPool"));
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error registering the tomcat pool
data source", e);
}
Thanks for the quick support on my queries.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <devli...@hanik.com
> wrote:
> Here is an example
>
> String query = "BEGIN DBMS_LOCK.sleep(seconds => 5.01); END;"
>
>
> It is pretty obvious that you can't do "SELECT 1; SELECT 1;" is this would
> result in TWO result sets.
> But you can create a block and execute any number of instructions
>
> The above example executes a stored procedure.
> Filip
>
>
> On 2/9/2012 9:48 AM, Pid wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/2012 16:21, Amit wrote:
>>
>>> Any thoughts on the first point about executing multiple SQL queries on
>>> physical connection creation?
>>>
>> I have no idea if it'll work, but I'd try:
>>
>> SELECT 1; SELECT 1;
>>
>> If you are controlling the pool (and you are) by passing in
>> username/password parameters each time, then you could do it as an extra
>> transaction thereafter.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>> On 09-Feb-2012, at 7:05 PM, Pid<p...@pidster.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/02/2012 12:56, amit shah wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more comment below about oracle UCP.
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The pool returns members at random, so how would you know which cached
>>>>>>>>> credentials you were getting?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The credentials which are passed to the getConnection(String
>>>>>>>>> username,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> String password) method. When we configure the same pool to be used
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> multiple schema's the pool will *not *be configured with default
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> username
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> password.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, so you create a bunch of connections with various credentials,
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> want to cache those connections and only return them if the creds
>>>>>>> match
>>>>>>> for the new request?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're basically creating an uncontrolled pool per cred pair,
>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>> the outer pool which is controlled?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes right.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So why not create multiple controlled pools& not run into availability
>>>>
>>>> problems?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> What overhead?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The application server and database server resources (memory, cpu
>>>>>> etc) for
>>>>>> keeping the connections open?
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's a total connection count dependent metric.
>>>>
>>>> So the overhead is virtually the same regardless of whether you have 5
>>>> pools or 1, if you have the same total number of connections.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For e.g. If we have 5 tenants with 5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pools configured with 10 min pool size, we would have min 50
>>>>>>>> connections
>>>>>>>> always open to the database server. This count would be for each
>>>>>>>> application server. If we had the same pool for all 5 tenants, there
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> be just 10 connections open per application server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a flaw in your logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In your example there may be zero connections open for a given tenant
>>>>>>> because they use a shared pool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you might has well have separate pools with the minimum set to 2
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> still have more connections guaranteed per tenant, and the 10 you
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> aiming for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worse, if you hit your max with other tenants, a remaining tenant
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> not be able to get a connection at all, thus failing to address one
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the key requirements in a multi-tenant system - guaranteed
>>>>>>> availability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably true when all the tenants are actively used. As I said,
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> always a flexibility in the configuration to use a separate pool for a
>>>>>> particular tenant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That should be the default IMO. You're asking for trouble otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also the application can always provide a configuration flexibility to
>>>>>>>> allow a tenant to use a separate pool instead of sharing it with
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> tenants (like I said above).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This flexibility is provided by the Oracle Universal Connection
>>>>>>>> Pool<http://docs.oracle.com/**cd/E11882_01/java.112/e12265/**
>>>>>>>> toc.htm<http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/java.112/e12265/toc.htm>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if that's a better fit for your requirement, why not use it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides the feature I mentioned about by has lock contention
>>>>> issues.
>>>>> Tomcat 7 jdbc pool seems to be better and hence I was trying it out.
>>>>>
>>>> !
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> If you are programmatically registering the pool, can you not just
>>>>>>> register it with the MBean server yourself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok I will try this and provide an update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> users-unsubscribe@tomcat.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tomcat.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
