Sam Tregar wrote:
>*** From dbi-users - To unsubscribe, see the end of this message. ***
>*** DBI Home Page - http://www.symbolstone.org/technology/perl/DBI/ ***
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > Ignoring 'thread' (unsafe for production use) and 'debug' modes, the
> > no
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> I'd like to see a mode added to DBI::ProxyServer whereby a single
> server process serviced multiple clients in a round-robin manner.
> Obviously in this mode there's a risk of slow queries cloging up
> (blocking) the proxy, but for many applications it would still be
> ve
ECTED]
> Cc: Ed Park; Oleg Bartunov; modperl; dbi-users
> Subject: Limitations of DBI::ProxyServer (was: pool of DB
> connections?)
>
[snip]
> I'd like to see a mode added to DBI::ProxyServer whereby a single
> server process serviced multiple clients in a
Hi there,
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I'd like to see a mode added to DBI::ProxyServer whereby a single
> server process serviced multiple clients in a round-robin manner.
> Obviously in this mode there's a risk of slow queries cloging up
> (blocking) the proxy, but for many applicat
her
server if you want or use as Unix Domain (as it's very fast compare to
TCP/IP socket).
Niraj
-Original Message-
From: Leslie Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: pool of DB connection
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Tim Bunce wrote:
> You're quite right, but both cases need to be allowed for as some
> database (notably Oracle) get upset if a child process tries to use a
> connection established by the parent process.
Interesting. So Oracle snoops on the PID of the process calling it?
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 07:46:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > Ignoring 'thread' (unsafe for production use) and 'debug' modes, the
> > normal 'fork' mode means that each client gets a seperate ProxyServer
> > process. And because of that, clients have n
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Ignoring 'thread' (unsafe for production use) and 'debug' modes, the
> normal 'fork' mode means that each client gets a seperate ProxyServer
> process. And because of that, clients have no way to share connections
> with each other.
Is that necessarily the
> "Tim" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> I hope that helps.
Immensely!
Thank you, Tim!
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comed
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 01:19:53PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
> [watch the followups... this is going to both the modperl
> and the DBI list...]
>
> > "Ed" == Ed Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ed> each creates a network connection to DBI::ProxyServer, which
> Ed> creates a few
> So, Tim, what *are* the differences, and when should we should we
> choose Apache::DBI vs DBI->connect_cached, and why?
I think one of the big differences is that Apache::DBI overrides the
disconnect method, to prevent accidentally calling disconnect from a
mod_perl script. When using connect_
[watch the followups... this is going to both the modperl
and the DBI list...]
> "Ed" == Ed Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ed> each creates a network connection to DBI::ProxyServer, which
Ed> creates a few persistent connections to the db server using the
Ed> connect_cached method.
I had
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using mod_perl, DBI, ApacheDBI and was quite happy
> with persistent connections httpd<->postgres until I used
> just one database. Currently I have 20 apache servers which
> handle 20 connections to database. If I want to work with
> anothe
According to Oleg Bartunov:
> > > Currently I have 20 apache servers which
> > > handle 20 connections to database. If I want to work with
> > > another database I have to create another 20 connections
> > > with DB, so I will have 40 postgres backends. This is too much.
>
> I didn't write all de
Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Oleg Bartunov
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 12:00 PM
> To: Leslie Mikesell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: pool of DB connections ?
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
>
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Sheth, Niraj wrote:
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:19:12 -0500
> From: "Sheth, Niraj " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: pool of DB connections ?
>
> Have you looked at "Perl Co
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:59:38 -0600 (CST)
> From: Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: pool of DB connections ?
>
> According to Oleg Ba
According to Oleg Bartunov:
> I'm using mod_perl, DBI, ApacheDBI and was quite happy
> with persistent connections httpd<->postgres until I used
> just one database. Currently I have 20 apache servers which
> handle 20 connections to database. If I want to work with
> another database I have to c
Hi,
I'm using mod_perl, DBI, ApacheDBI and was quite happy
with persistent connections httpd<->postgres until I used
just one database. Currently I have 20 apache servers which
handle 20 connections to database. If I want to work with
another database I have to create another 20 connections
with
19 matches
Mail list logo
