Not sure it will help any but hopefully you never know. On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Bernd F <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, > > yes I switched to threadsafe on Sept 12th, because of the new billing > policy, but that issue already happened before. > > I'll change my code to use the low-level MemcacheService instead of > JCache immediately. With JCache I tried both: saving the instance in a > static variable for reuse and creating the cache object on every > request. I can tell you that there is no difference (at least with > JCache) in cpu usage and servlet execution time. > > Thank you very much for your suggestion!! > > > > On 2 Okt., 23:24, Stephen Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > You don't mention if you have threadsafe on. If so, you might be > > experiencing some sort of deadlock or something with the way you are > > creating your JCache on every request. I'd try moving away from JCache > and > > accessing the MemcacheService directly. I create a MemcacheService object > > for each thread and reuse that object. I've had no problems/issues like > > you've described but my QPS are probably not as much as yours. Here's > some > > sample code > > > > private static ThreadLocal<MemcacheService> memcacheService = > > newThreadLocal<MemcacheService>() { > > > > protected synchronized MemcacheService initialValue() { > > > > return MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService(); > > > > } > > > > }; > > > > public static MemcacheService getService() { > > > > return memcacheService.get(); > > > > } > > > > If you try switching to MemcacheService directly, please let us know if > it > > helps or not. > > > > Stephen > > > > CortexConnect.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Bernd F <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you for your input Jay, at least there is something I can cling > > > to. Could you be a little bit more specific about this bad value. > > > > > What could that be? Or better said: Is that anything I can control? > > > > > Btw: After I set the Max Idle value to Automatic a few days ago it > > > happened again (earlier today). > > > > > On 2 Okt., 20:27, Jay Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It sounds like you have a bad value in memcache and when a servlet > hits > > > it, > > > > it blocks the instance that's executing it. When you have multiple > > > > instances running, other requests can be served by other instances. > When > > > > you set it to 1, that one faulty instance gets backed up and requests > > > start > > > > timing out. That's the only reason I can think of that clearing > memcache > > > > AND changing your # of instances would solve the problem. It's like > your > > > > bad memcache value is a blockage in a stream. Clearing memcache > clears > > > the > > > > block. Increasing the number of instances allows other requests to > flow > > > > around the block. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Google App Engine" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
