I thought I would chime in here a little... as I've been using Kevin's idea to create some web applications (none of which are live, except for a few management reports- not because I've had problems, but, mainly because priorities keep changing - if you know how that goes)
At any rate. I have a management report that pops up on an Ipad/Iphone/Droid or whatever. The UV process that gets fired goes in and grabs Sales data for 30 store locations and spits it back. Using firebug, I can see how long the php script that calls the UV process takes. It does its reads, etc., and then bottles up the data and sends back a string (1.2 KB in size) in JSON or XML or whatever in around 800 ms to 1 second consistently. So I guess thats consistent with what you were saying. Just thought I would add to the info. However, I did notice that UV on AIX is limited to 256MB of RAM per session. So I wonder if Linux would behave differently? Ironically, I'm in the process of setting up a UV Linux machine for our production system, because AIX 5 support is ending soon. So I guess I'll find out soon enough. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Symeon Breen <syme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Similarly here - I have two web services that my apps connect to - one is > pooled, the other not. Typical time for a transaction using the pooled one > is between 300 and 600 ms, whereas the non pooled for the same transaction > is between 1 and 2. > > I have 2 because my apps connect to the pooled web service with a 2 second > timeout, then fail over to the non pooled. I have to do this cos the pooled > connections hang several times a day (hence why I have to restart unirpcd > and kill off the pooled udt processes) The problem is not in the DB code as > it happens randomly and with our logging it is definitely coming out of the > DB code and then refuses to accept any more data on the socket, and the > .net > code is very simple, so it must be in the uniobjects layer or unirpcd. I > have tried several dll's to no avail, so we will have to get a new linux > box > with the very latest udt and see how that goes. Long sigh ..... > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Holt, Jake > Sent: 01 December 2011 15:12 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Did you do any actual testing on that to confirm it? I created a WCF web > service that manages a set of shared connections for all of my .net apps > that access UniVerse. I found that starting the session took much longer > then processing most of my requests if the session was already open. > > -----Original Message----- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Kevin King > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:00 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Unidata 7.1 Unresponsive UO Connection > > Not focusing on connection pooling at this point but that may be a > consideration for the future. I've found that the overhead of the two > Apache method is so small that most of the gains offered by connection > pooling are minimized. > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2102/4049 - Release Date: 11/30/11 > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- John Thompson _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
