Isn't this discussion about connection pools and firewalls etc getting a bit far from the initial subject of the thread ?

On 09.02.2021 23:03, Mithun Bhattacharya wrote:
I would consider mine a small setup on an internal network and I have used both Sybase and SQL Server. In our case the DBA's preferred us to remain connected rather than make too many connections - we need DB access in bursts - it could be quiet for more than an hour and then suddenly we might need hundreds of connections within few minutes (if we didnt cache it). Another thing was we were connecting from forked processes so at some point everything gets reaped including the connections. Our style of coding has been to connect to the DB wherever we actually need to fire one or more SQLs and do connect_cached in the actual implementation (it is a separate library since we had to place a wrapper to acquire credentials)

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:34 PM James Smith <j...@sanger.ac.uk 
<mailto:j...@sanger.ac.uk>> wrote:

    Mithun,

    I’m not sure on what scale you work – but these are from experience in 
sites with
    small to medium load – and we rarely see an appreciable gain in using 
cached or pooled
    connections, just the occasional heartache they cause.
    If you are working on small applications with a minimal number of databases 
on the DB
    server then you may see some performance improvement (but tbh not as much 
as you used
    to – as the servers have changed) Unfortunately I don’t in both my main and 
secondary
    roles, and I know many others who come across these limitations as well.

    I’m not saying don’t use persistent or cached connections – but leaving it 
to some
    hidden layers is not necessarily a good thing to do – it can have 
unforeseen side
    effects {and Apache::DBI & PHP pconnect have both shown these up}

    If you are working with e.g. with MySQL the overhead of the (socket) 
connection is
    very small, but having more connections open to cope with persistent 
connections
    {memory wise} often needs specifying a much large database server – or not 
being able
    to do all the nice tricks to in memory indexes and queries [to increase 
query
    performance]. Being able to chose which connections you keep open and which 
you
    open/close on a per request basis gives you the benefits of caching without 
the risks
    involved [other than the “lock table” issue].____

    __ __

    __ __

    *From:*Mithun Bhattacharya <mit...@gmail.com <mailto:mit...@gmail.com>>
    *Sent:* 09 February 2021 18:34
    *To:* mod_perl list <modperl@perl.apache.org 
<mailto:modperl@perl.apache.org>>
    *Subject:* Re: Moving ExecCGI to mod_perl - performance and custom 
'modules' [EXT]____

    __ __

    Connection caching does work for most use cases - we have to accept James 
works in
    scenarios most developers can't fathom :) ____

    __ __

    If you are just firing off simple SQL's without any triggers or named 
temporary tables
    involved you should be good. The only times we recall tripping on cached 
connection is
    when two different code snippets tried to create the same temporary table. 
Another
    time the code was expecting the disconnect to complete the connection 
cleanup.____

    __ __

    On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Vincent Veyron <vv.li...@wanadoo.fr
    <mailto:vv.li...@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:____

        On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 20:21:34 +0000
        James Smith <j...@sanger.ac.uk <mailto:j...@sanger.ac.uk>> wrote:

        Hi James,

         > DBI sharing doesn't really gain you much - and can actually lead you 
into a
        whole world of pain. It isn't actually worth turning it on at all.
         >

        Never had a problem with it myself in years of using it, but I wrap my 
queries in
        an eval { } and check $@, so that the scripts are not left hanging; 
also I have a
        postgresql db ;-).

        I ran some tests with ab, I do see an improvement in response speed :

        my $dbh = DBI->connect()
        Concurrency Level:      5
        Time taken for tests:   22.198 seconds
        Complete requests:      1000
        Failed requests:        0
        Total transferred:      8435000 bytes
        HTML transferred:       8176000 bytes
        Requests per second:    45.05 [#/sec] (mean)
        Time per request:       110.990 [ms] (mean)
        Time per request:       22.198 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent 
requests)
        Transfer rate:          371.08 [Kbytes/sec] received

        my $dbh = DBI->connect_cached()
        Concurrency Level:      5
        Time taken for tests:   15.133 seconds
        Complete requests:      1000
        Failed requests:        0
        Total transferred:      8435000 bytes
        HTML transferred:       8176000 bytes
        Requests per second:    66.08 [#/sec] (mean)
        Time per request:       75.664 [ms] (mean)
        Time per request:       15.133 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent 
requests)
        Transfer rate:          544.33 [Kbytes/sec] received


--
                                                 Bien à vous, Vincent Veyron

        https://compta.libremen.com [compta.libremen.com]
        
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__compta.libremen.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=D7ByGjS34AllFgecYw0iC6Zq7qlm8uclZFI0SqQnqBo&r=oH2yp0ge1ecj4oDX0XM7vQ&m=CnIW-j3Bw_IfohZCciiwtkoqvr6nV2hHrNYMPpEOe8E&s=uf6Qi4tnTPryVuPvOKwfZQcFOksecWyn-LYPDVj44lY&e=>
        Logiciel libre de comptabilité générale en partie double


        ____

    -- The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a 
charity
    registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in 
England with
    number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.


Reply via email to