DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37020] - antiJARLocking and antiResourceLocking with many lib jars causes performance degradation and reload failure.

2005-10-12 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-10-12 12:53 ---
This is not a bug. The webapp is indeed deployed over to another location, which
takes time.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37020] - antiJARLocking and antiResourceLocking with many lib jars causes performance degradation and reload failure.

2005-10-12 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |enhancement




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-10-12 12:58 ---
i thought it may not be a bug, i've changed the severity to enhancement to 
make that clear. 

there is clearly an issue with deployer on windows machines, and coupled with a 
large web application this kind of performance is not workable when the anti-
locking strategy is put in place.  

i suppose the answer will be to add anti locking for deployed applications only 
and keep dev setups without the anti locking off.

thanks anyway.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37020] - antiJARLocking and antiResourceLocking with many lib jars causes performance degradation and reload failure.

2005-10-12 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-10-12 14:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 i thought it may not be a bug, i've changed the severity to enhancement to 
 make that clear. 
 
 there is clearly an issue with deployer on windows machines, and coupled with 
 a 
 large web application this kind of performance is not workable when the anti-
 locking strategy is put in place.  
 
 i suppose the answer will be to add anti locking for deployed applications 
 only 
 and keep dev setups without the anti locking off.
 

If you have zillions of JARs, then there's no solution. The MS stuff and the Sun
JVM seem to both be optimized so that JAR file locking (or even regular file
locking) will almost always occur. The workaround for all problems is to copy
the whole thing to the temp folder, and just run it from there. JBoss does the
same thing to allow hot deployment.

The other workaround is to consider using OSes with more flexible filesystems.

I told you already that antiJARLocking and antiResourceLocking don't do the same
thing, and using both is not very useful. BTW, your other bug report is bad.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37020] - antiJARLocking and antiResourceLocking with many lib jars causes performance degradation and reload failure.

2005-10-12 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37020





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-10-12 14:43 ---
 BTW, your other bug report is bad.

is it? or is it just that Tomcat does not offer any reasons for its failures 
and I am led to believe there is a problem because of the unexpected behaviour?

the bug report lists precise steps to a failure that should not be there or if 
there is a reason should be reported to the user.

consider it another enhancement than a bug if that is the case.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]