Just so it's clear, I'm not opposed to removing non-shared-cache as an
option.   I just wanted to let you know why I was considering using it
since you asked.


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>>> Having separate ServerRuntimes would require separate connections to
>>> the database, correct? If so, that would not scale well.
>>
>> No. All of them can reuse a single shared DataSource.
>
> I will have to look into that.   I thought when I was doing my testing
> of changing the qualifiers with a separate ServerRuntime that it used
> a separate database connection.   Maybe it's just not configured to
> share the datasource by default.
>
>
>>> I'm guessing it would also use quite a bit more memory if each session
>>> had its own ServerRuntime, depending on the size of your data model.
>>
>> “Use shared cache” creates the most of the memory overhead. Memory overhead 
>> of multiple ServerRuntimes (compared with unchecking "use shared cache”) is 
>> only in keeping clones of various service singletons (factories, etc.). I 
>> should probably try it out in profiler and see what the exact value is, but 
>> my wild guess is < 1MB per runtime.
>
> You mean 'Unchecking “Use shared cache” creates the most of the memory
> overhead', right?
>
> I started to comment on this in my first response, but decided it
> didn't matter.   There's little point in comparing it against the
> other memory since that memory use is going to be the same whether
> it's one or multiple ServerRuntimes, and will depend on the
> application.    In my use case, the amount of database information
> pulled in is pretty small per session most of the time.   Maybe one
> table row from five-to-ten tables and a few table rows from a couple
> of other tables.   Less often a session might pull in a great deal
> more data from a lot more tables.
>
> But if it's < 1Mb per runtime, then it's unlikely it will matter.
> Since my largest xml data map file is a 256K and contains 75 entities,
> I assumed that each runtime would also have to load a copy of that
> data into memory.

Reply via email to