If you're in there David, there's a few things that would be really cool to implement. It would be nice if the pools could be configured to diagnose and point out through a stack trace resource leaks. Like, connections never being closed, ResultSets and Statements never being closed, that sort of thing. We did this for connections with JBoss 2.4.x and it proved invaluable at a few customer sights.
(BTW, this is a task under the JCA task list at SF). Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Stefan Reich > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 8:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Re: CachedConnectionManager > > > I think if the only purpose of this class is to let a few people get > away with writing wrong code, while penalizing the scalability of 99% > of the existing beans I would be fine with yanking it. Holding > references to connections between EJB invocations is simply evil. > > Stefan > > On Monday, Jan 27, 2003, at 16:29 US/Pacific, David Jencks wrote: > > > mail problems, maybe this try will work > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:01:50 PM US/Eastern > >> To: Stefan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: how's ecperf going? > >> > >> If this is providing a performance bottleneck I think I should > >> provide an option to avoid use of it entirely. It is really only > >> needed when people are perverse enough to want to hold connection > >> handles over method invocations. I'd like to see your proposed > >> changes anyway. > >> > >> thanks > >> david > >> > >> On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Stefan Reich wrote: > >> > >>> It's the Map "objectToConnetionManagerMap". I moved some null checks > >>> out of the synchronized blocks, but there is not much more to > >>> optimize. I'll check the changes in when I have the time. > >>> > >>> Stefan > >>> > >>>> Message: 1 > >>>> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:13:19 -0500 > >>>> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Re: how's ecperf going? > >>>> From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the update. Can you let me know which hashmap in > >>>> CachedConnectionManager is causing contention? > >>>> > >>>> Also, I have a plan for 4 anyway to only swap transactions when they > >>>> actually change. it should be pretty easy to fix in 3/3.2 directly > >>>> also. > >>>> > >>>> thanks > >>>> david jencks > >>>> On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 08:23 PM, Stefan Reich wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Bill, > >>>>> > >>>>> I am running ecperf regularly on the 3.0 and 3.2 branches. I > >>>>> accumulated a bunch of fixes for scalability and performance > >>>>> problems > >>>>> already, plus a few fixes for inconsistent lock usage that I will > >>>>> merge soon. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are some things I noticed: > >>>>> * the test fails when I deploy the BMP version, some of the beans > >>>>> that > >>>>> have been created don't seem to end up in the database. > >>>>> * the CMP version must be tweaked to use the util.xml BMP version > >>>>> of > >>>>> the beans (search for SERIALIZABLE in the README) to work correctly > >>>>> * the CMP version doesn't deploy anymore on the current 3.2 branch > >>>>> * with the 3.2 branch I get many more spurious esceptions than > >>>>> with 3.0 > >>>>> * a HashMap in the class CachedConnectionManager seems to be the > >>>>> most > >>>>> contended lock > >>>>> * JAWS checks for the existence of a PK before inserting a new row > >>>>> in > >>>>> the database. This is pretty expensive. > >>>>> * the LogInterceptor usage of the NDC class makes it a global > >>>>> source > >>>>> of contention > >>>>> * TxInterceptorCMP suspends and resumes a transaction in all cases, > >>>>> sometimes even twice. This can be very expensive, especially with > >>>>> global transactions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since I am running the tests on PowerPC Macs and the Apple VM it is > >>>>> hard to compare the results with other platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stefan > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 19:11 US/Pacific, Bill Burke wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Are you getting decent results? I heard from Scott that you've > >>>>>> made > >>>>>> some > >>>>>> improvements. Need me to merge your changes at all? Just want to > >>>>>> know > >>>>>> what's up. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > >>>>>> Bill Burke > >>>>>> Chief Architect > >>>>>> JBoss Group, LLC > >>>>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > > http://www.vasoftware.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
