commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Johnson" <5fsvdi...@sneakemail.com>
Subject RE: [dbcp] PoolableConnectionFactory validation and synchronized methods
Date Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:43:30 GMT
Hello Dirk,

We have build dbcp with the synchronization removed and it removed the
bottleneck from dbcp. We've only used our modified dbcp in our testing
environment. I wanted to check with the list to see if we were
overlooking something when modifying the synchronization. I'll probably
post our patch to the list tomorrow. It is a really small change.

Thanks,
Brad Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Verbeeck dirk.verbeeck-at-pandora.be |jakarta-commons|
[mailto:44p5hor9q30t@sneakemail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 7:35 AM
To: Johnson, Brad
Subject: Re: [dbcp] PoolableConnectionFactory validation and
synchronized methods

Hello Brad,

There is indeed no technical reason why PoolableConnectionFactory should
be 
synchronized but I didn't want to include this change in 1.1.
First it should be tested by multiple people / multiple database systems
to 
see how the system reacts in the real world.

There is indeed a good chance that the change boosts performance without
any 
negative effects.

If you are able and have the time to do some performance tests then
please do 
so, I can assist if needed (make test build,...).

Regards
Dirk

Brad Johnson wrote:
> Hello Dirk,
> 
> Well, we are trying to get as much concurrency out of our application
as we can (uPortal running on Tomcat).  Seems that allowing concurrent
connections to the database should help performance, and might allow
your code to perform well enough that it exposes a bottleneck in the
database. Then the problem is really with the database. So, I really
don't see any drawback of removing synchronized from the code on these
methods. Am I missing something here?
> 
> thanks,
> Brad Johnson
> Texas Tech University
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: Dirk Verbeeck
> Subject: Re: JDBC AbandonedObjectPool and PoolableConnectionFactory 
> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:24:40 -0700
> 
> You can remove the synchronization of the validateObject method in
PoolableConnectionFactory but be carefull. If the query is slow because
the database is overloaded then allowing more validationQueries will
increase the problem.
> 
> For the next release I'm thinking about monitoring SQLExceptions
thrown by the connection and invalidating the connection before it is
returned to the pool.
> 
> This will cover "broken" connections. Combined with a
"testOnBorrowOldConnection" it can replace the current "testOnBorrow".
> 
> Dirk
> -------------------
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg27029.html



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message