ibatis-user-java mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hugh Ross" <hh4r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: iBATIS lock timeouts
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:31:52 GMT
Thanks.  Very helpful.  Agree that these things are more properly the
responsibility of "containers."

Just reread the section of the SQL Maps Developer Guide that covers these
settings.  Your maxTransactions example below seems to differ from the
documented usage.

With earlier versions of iBATIS, can we set them to 0 (or something) to
suppress their action?


On 7/20/08, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it was a pretty deep implementation detail.  Essentially
> there used to be 3 settings:
>
> maxSessions
> maxTransactions
> maxRequests
>
> A session was a user thread accessing nearly any part of the framework.  A
> transaction was a database connection and transaction.  A request was an
> executing SQL statement.  So essentially you could configure something
> like:  5 sessions, 15 transactions (avg. two per session), and 60 requests
> (avg. four per transaction).  Note that these are limits on how many of
> these could be active at any one time, not how many can be created etc.
>
> A Throttle was the implementation of the limitation.  In a nutshell, it was
> the Guarded Suspension pattern that blocked with a wait until a session,
> transaction or request became available.
>
> This is similar to the throttling that EJBs and Spring (?) would normally
> do.  Typical usages were to avoid hitting the database too hard, avoid
> running out of open cursors in oracle, or to avoid opening too many
> connections at once.
>
> The problems were:
>
>   * The settings were confusing, most people didn't understand them (not
> their fault) and therefore they were often set incorrectly.
>   * The behavior was duplicated, as the app server of container framework
> (Spring), and even the datasource  were likely throttling or limiting such
> activity already.
>   * The throttle features hid the underlying problems which were usually
> caused by not properly ending transactions or closing connections.
> (try/finally)
>   * Some complained about the blocking and synchronization required to
> implement this feature.
>
> So the behavior was superfluous and the errors were vague.  All for
> something that wasn't really the responsibility of iBATIS to handle.  So it
> was removed.
>
> The caveat is that you will now know if your application has a problem.
>
>   * If you fail to end transactions (i.e. close connections) your
> datasource or database will complain.
>   * If you hit your database too hard, you'll see performance degrade as
> threads contend for resources.
>   * If you try to run too many statements, your database may complain about
> too many open cursors.
>
> The advantage is that:
>
>   * The throttling is no longer duplicated in various layers of your
> application.
>   * Performance should be generally better once you tune some other
> throttle or fix mismanaged connections.
>   * You'll get the proper error that will tell you what the real problem
> is.
>
> If you want to throttle iBATIS yourself, you can do so fairly simply with a
> dynamic proxy between the SqlMapClient interface and the SqlMapClientImpl --
> perhaps I should release something of the sort as a plug-in?
>
> But I highly recommend you hunt down the actual problem with your
> application.. If you're getting deadlocks, that could either be unclosed
> connections, poorly written stored procedures or resources that are
> allocated out of order.  The problems were always there, iBATIS was just
> hiding them "for you".... hope that helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Clinton
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Hugh Ross <hh4ross@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Clinton,
>>
>> Can you send us a link to more detail on this thread throttling, perhaps
>> in wiki or release notes?
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>>   On 7/17/08, Clinton Begin <clinton.begin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've removed all thread throttling from iBATIS.  It was causing a great
>>> deal of confusing and people complained about performance.   The thread
>>> throttling was quite advanced and had a lot of scalability testing behind
>>> it, it was able to hide a lot of problems like this.
>>>
>>> The downside is that you now have to make sure you're not throwing too
>>> much at your database.  The way you've solved it is probably the way it
>>> should have been originally.  iBATIS was hiding the problem for you, which
>>> was sometimes a feature, and other times a bug.  At least now you know
>>> what's really going on... :-)
>>>
>>> That said, it's also possible that you're not closing your transactions
>>> properly.  The thread throttling in past releases also did a good job of
>>> hiding that from you as well.. but now you'll start to see the database
>>> complain about such errors. Again, sometimes a feature, other times a bug.
>>>
>>> Clinton
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Michael Schall <mike.schall@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Production Environment:
>>>> We are using a JNDI datasource in WS 6.1 (fixpack 15) to connect to a
>>>> DB2 9.1 (fixpack 2) database on a separate cluster.
>>>>
>>>> We recently upgraded our Java version of iBATIS after falling way behind
>>>> from 2.0.9 to the latest release 2.3.1.
>>>>
>>>> The dev and test environment showed no issues with the upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> When rolling out to production we started getting lock timeouts that
>>>> would bring the system down under heavy load.
>>>>
>>>> We did not recreate the JNDI datasource or replace any database drivers
>>>> on the WebSphere machines or make any configuration changes within DB2
>>>> (other than new tables/columns) during the latest release.
>>>>
>>>> We first thought the default IsolationLevel had changed from "Cursor
>>>> Stability" to "Read Stability", but that is actually the default
>>>> IsolationLevel when connecting from WS to DB2 using JNDI.  However, as a
>>>> troubleshooting step, we set the IsolationLevel within the JNDI datasource
>>>> to 2 (Cursor Stability), which is allowing our system to avoid the lock
>>>> timeouts.
>>>>
>>>> I have looked throught the change log and nothing seems to point to the
>>>> issue we are having.   Any ideas on where our problem might be?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message