Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.152 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=Ztp24cuv5IRYow4r3+eNzjt0g3voWP69ef0omQKC8LDIp06dTOxcG2lm1FyGGzw7Ay
         5puwRDN9ONXNm4DdF0U3eosF8r/TMsn0LxjpsXuv4pIuLaRmmZemTs/d7JlgZBMBGBaj
         pmvQeRHAOuq9Ftffd4A7RYeFKccGXJt5ks0nk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B3FDAF7.3050401@gmail.com>
References: <4B397345.30801@gmail.com> <4B3CC830.8030908@gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc1001010747u271e1fbbm30c0d9357a489159@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B3E40C9.2050003@gmail.com> <4B3E6E8A.80303@gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc1001021356s430c31d2j862f7b9ac68f5b02@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B3FDAF7.3050401@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:52:37 +0000
Message-ID: <25aac9fc1001021652x5de64bfcpb17586c75c5deb7b@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RESULT: Failed [VOTE] Release DBCP 1.3/1.4 - take three
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 02/01/2010, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>  > On 01/01/2010, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >> Phil Steitz wrote:
>  >>  > sebb wrote:
>  >>  >> On 31/12/2009, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>  >>> Comments have not changed sebb's -1, so I am going to consider this
>  >>  >>>  a failed VOTE and roll another RC with documentation fixes already
>  >>  >>>  made included and attempt at clearer release notes and README.
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >>>  Thanks, all for review and sorry to take so long to get this right.
>  >>  >> Please note that I am still seeing the occasional test failures (even
>  >>  >> after the test bug fix).
>  >>  >> As a result, I did not revisit the -1 for the compilation problems -
>  >>  >> the test failure seems like a -1 to me as well.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > In that case, I am honestly inclined to just remove / disable the
>  >>  > tests.  As I said before, they are fragile and frankly half-baked.
>  >>  > Unfortunately, they did uncover a real bug recently, so I am of two
>  >>  > minds on this.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > What is going on in the most recent failure you reported (line 376
>  >>  > of TestPerUserPoolDataSource) is a ThreadGroup is started launching
>  >>  > 2 * maxActive threads, all of which try to get connections, hold
>  >>  > them for (sic) 1 ms and then release them.  MaxWait is 100 ms and
>  >>  > maxActive is 10.   This "should" work as the effective throughput
>  >>  > should be ~10 requests / ms (that assumes perfect efficiency and no
>  >>  > execution time, which is not quite right), so 20 requests should
>  >>  > complete in ~20 ms.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Sorry - that should be 2 ms.
>  >
>  > If maxWait is 100ms, and each thread waits 1ms, surely this should always work?
>  > Even if each wait actually takes 50ms, the first 10 requests will take
>  > approx 50ms, and the remaining 10 requests will then get their
>  > connections.
>  >
>  > In the tests I ran last year (!), at least some of the failed tests
>  > showed that 10 of the threads timed out, i.e. none of the original 10
>  > threads had finished. It seems a bit unlikely that this is really an
>  > issue with the processing times.
>  >
>  > I think this needs closer investigation - I'll try and add some more
>  > debug for the failed cases.
>
>
> Thanks.  I just completed 1000 runs each using Apple 1.5, 1.6, Sun
>  1.6 and JRockit 1.4 (last two on Ubuntu 9.10) with no failures.

Any tests using multiple core systems?

>  You are correct that with maxActive = 10, throughput should be
>  nearly 10/ms, so 20 should finish in 2ms.  There are three things
>  that can dampen the throughput:
>
>  1) Elapsed time between when a thread invokes sleep(1) and performs
>  its next action (which is to return the connection it is holding)
>  2) Elapsed time waiting for a waiting thread to respond to notify
>  3) There is a trivial amount of code executed by the threads holding
>  the connections and of course the pool itself executes some code.
>
>  What JDK are you using when you see these failures?

java version "1.6.0_17"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 14.3-b01, mixed mode, sharing)

This is on Windows XP, dual-processor (Centrino).

There is another bug in the test - it does not wait for all the
threads to finish.
However, I don't think this affects the result, as the first test is
the one that fails, so there can't be any threads at that point.
However it could affect the second test, as the same driver and pool
is used. The two tests should probably be separate test cases.

>  One thing to look at to rule out a [pool] bug is to see if you get
>  failures using pool 1.4.
>

Not sure I follow - the pom uses specifies pool 1.5.4, so why would
using pool 1.4 help?

>
>  >
>  >>   The test waits 100 ms.  Given the fact that
>  >>  > perfect efficiency is obviously unrealistic, you can see that
>  >>  > especially with bad clock resolution and poor thread management
>  >>  > performance (Windoz is known for both), this is going to fail now
>  >>  > and then. FWIW, I have not seen a failure on OS X or Ubuntu (as OS X
>  >>  > guest) since sebb's last patch.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Barring objections, I am leaning toward removing the tests.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Phil
>  >>  >> I hope to try and look at the failures again tomorrow.
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >> It would be helpful if others could try running the failing test as
>  >>  >> well (you'll need a script to do this as it only fails about 1% of the
>  >>  >> time or less)
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>>  Phil
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >>>  Phil Steitz wrote:
>  >>  >>>  > Hopefully all problems with JDK versions and the site build have now
>  >>  >>>  > been resolved.  As previously discussed, the only difference between
>  >>  >>>  > 1.3 and 1.4 is that the 1.3 sources have been filtered to exclude
>  >>  >>>  > JDBC4 methods.  Version 1.3 is for JDK 1.4-1.5 and only builds under
>  >>  >>>  > one of these JDKs.  Note that to execute the 1.3 maven build under
>  >>  >>>  > JDK 1.4 you need a 2.0.x version of maven.
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > Here are the artifacts:
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > 1.3 (JDBC 3) version:
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/site
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.3-rc6/maven
>  >>  >>>  > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_3_RC6/
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > 1.4 (JDBC 4) version:
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/site
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.4-rc6/maven
>  >>  >>>  > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/dbcp/tags/DBCP_1_4_RC6/
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > Release notes (common version, ships with both)
>  >>  >>>  > http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > Votes, please. This VOTE will close 01-January-2010 03:30 GMT.
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > [ ] +1 Proceed with release
>  >>  >>>  > [ ] +0 OK
>  >>  >>>  > [ ] -0 OK, but I would prefer...
>  >>  >>>  > [ ] -1 No, showstopper = ...
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > Thanks!
>  >>  >>>  >
>  >>  >>>  > Phil
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>  >>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  >>  >>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >>>
>  >>  >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>  >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  >>  >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  >>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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