So what about this bug?
When the fix will be out?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:34 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: StandartSession.accessCount bug?
Christopher Schultz wrote:
150ns per request (on my hardware
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
So what about this bug?
When the fix will be out?
The fix is in SVN now. It will be in 5.5.21. Release date for 5.5.21
is TBD.
Mark
-
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To
Christopher Schultz wrote:
150ns per request (on my hardware) is still probably more than we want
to add to every request.
Really? If you say so...
Sorry. I was having a bad day. I was reading nano and thinking micro.
Various performance figures show a 'fast' request takes about 100
micro
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
Guys,
Did you consider to use java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong ?
No, since this is a Java 5 class and TC5 will run on a 1.4 JVM
providing a couple of additional JARs are present.
Mark
-
To
Mark,
Contended locks are much slower, so it's important to know.
It was contended. I have added the uncontended figures: 75ns and 225ns.
What do the two different values mean?
Also, did your +50ns figure mean that the /overhead/ was +50ns, or that
waiting for the other thread to release the
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:32 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: StandartSession.accessCount bug?
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
Guys,
Did you consider to use java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong ?
No, since this is a Java 5 class and TC5 will run on a 1.4 JVM
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:38:37AM -0500, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Also, did your +50ns figure mean that the /overhead/ was +50ns, or that
waiting for the other thread to release the lock (which would include
execution of the method itself) took 50ms longer. Since those threads
cannot really
Hi,
I'm using version 5.5.12. I noticed that sometimes sessions doesn't
expire after a session-timeout.
I started to debug my application and when I haven't found anything
useful I proceeded to Tomcat's code. It looks that there is a
synchronization bug during the update of the
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
Hi,
I'm using version 5.5.12. I noticed that sometimes sessions doesn't
expire after a session-timeout.
What do you think?
That is http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
I have some ideas for a fix. It might get in to 5.5.21 if I get the
Mark,
Mark Thomas wrote:
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
Hi,
I'm using version 5.5.12. I noticed that sometimes sessions doesn't
expire after a session-timeout.
What do you think?
That is http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37356
Wow. Some real yelling and screaming going
Christopher Schultz wrote:
Can someone explain why unsynchronized data + threaded access !=
non-threadsafe code?
It doesn't take a genius to see that the accessCount variable there is
not threadsafe. And since Tomcat ought to be implemented such that
multiple threads can run successfully...
Christopher Schultz wrote:
I posted a comment on that bug that points out that you didn't provide
context for your numbers. Was that +50ms timing taken when you were
using a single thread, or multiple threads? Contended locks are much
slower, so it's important to know.
It was contended. I have
Thanks!
From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 3:22 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: StandartSession.accessCount bug?
Michael Kantarovich wrote:
Hi,
I'm using version 5.5.12. I noticed that sometimes sessions doesn't
expire
Guys,
Did you consider to use java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong ?
From: Mark Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 7:13 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: StandartSession.accessCount bug?
Christopher Schultz wrote:
I posted
14 matches
Mail list logo
