jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <ra0...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Excalibur pooling [was: Apache Excalibur Logger]
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:11:13 GMT
Hi,

I am agree with Philippe, it will be great to remove Excalibur and put
tomcat pool for 2 reasons :
Better performance (see
http://www.tomcatexpert.com/blog/2010/03/22/understanding-jdbc-pool-performance-improvementsand
http://blog.ippon.fr/2013/03/13/improving-the-performance-of-the-spring-petclinic-sample-application-part-3-of-5/
)
have something which developer know and use

Antonio


2014/1/9 sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>

> On 8 January 2014 23:07, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 8, 2014, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 January 2014 22:10, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Reopening this thread after this bug report:
> >> >
> >> >    - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55977
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We have 2 options to fix this bug:
> >> >
> >> > Option 1):
> >> >
> >> > Upgrade excalibur libraries to 2.1
> >> >
> >> > Option 2):
> >> >
> >> > Switch to a new pooling implementation like Tomcat Pool (or
> >> commons-dbcp) .
> >> > Tomcat pool is more recent than commons-dbcp and is supposed to have
> much
> >> > better performances with high number of threads.
> >> >
> >> > It has all features currently available for excalibur.
> >>
> >> Not entirely true; Excalibur has quite sophisticated instrumentation
> >> (logging).
> >> That is how the log was generated and how the problem was found.
> >>
> >> > As I have said many times in the past, I personnally don't like the
> fact
> >> we
> >> > have some (fortunately very few  libraries of retired Apache project
> >> > (Excalibur) and would find it great to remove all excalibur related
> jars,
> >> > but we didn't get a consensus on this.
> >>
> >> I agree that it is unfortunate that Excalibur has been retired.
> >>
> >> However just because Commons Pool is newer does not necessarily make
> >> it significantly better.
> >
> >
> > I fully agree with you sebb , what i said was based on analysis by tomcat
> > team which I tend to trust but we could double check.
> >
> > I am speaking about tomcat pool vs commons-dbcp
>
> OK, but the same considerations apply.
>
> >> Have you compared performances?
> >
> >
> > There are benchmarks between commons dbcp and tomcat-pool I remember I
> read
> > them, but I can't find them now.
> >
> > Also tomcat-pool relies on jdk5 concurrent apis.
> > http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html
> >
> >  I also made a comparison on a ecommerce website with the 2 pools and it
> > had better behaviour.
> > But commons-dbcp is a great library also.
> >
> > I didn't compare perfs of excalibur vs others.My concern is the
> deprecation
> > state.
>
> It's not deprecated, just unmaintained.
> But if it works, don't fix it.
>
> >
> >> This time we have an opportunity which we should maybe jump at.
> >>
> >> Changing to an updated version of Excalibur is trivial, and does not
> >> affect users who may be relying on its instrumentation.
> >
> > where is the doc ?
>
> >>
> >> Changing to use Pool instead will require quite a lot of work.
> >> We may then find another implementation that is even better and have
> >> to go through it all again.
> >
> >
> >  commons dbcp is quite stable and tomcat pool is not that new
>
> I follow the Tomcat lists and there have been some recent fairly basic
> bugs reported against it.
> So I'm not sure how stable it is yet.
>
> >>
> >> So if we do change, I think we need to do it in such a way that users
> >> can plug in whatever pooling implementation they want
> >
> >
> > not sure it is worth, also the aim is to drop excalibur, if we keep it
> then
> > it is not worth the effort.
>
> The point is that any pool implementation will have its advantages and
> disadvantages.
>
> Even if we decided to drop Excalibr, I still think it would make sense
> to ensure that the pooling code is pluggable.
> We don't know what pooling system users will be installing for their
> systems.
>
> >
> >>
> >> We should anyway do the version update because that is trivial (and
> >> easily reversible).
> >
> > ok
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > My 2cts.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Philippe M.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 August 2012 21:43, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 22 August 2012 17:52, Milamber <milamber@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> >> >> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip/>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I think we should really remove dependency on Apache
Excalibur.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We still use parts of Excalibur for JDBC pooling.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't see the point of pooling if you are testing JDBC;
it then
> >> >> >> becomes as much a test of the pool rather than JDBC.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Don't understand this
> >> >>
> >> >> JMeter threads are intended to represent independent users, so
> sharing
> >> >> JDBC connections between different threads is equivalent to sharing
> >> >> between different users. Does not make sense to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> But assumijng that there is a use case for sharing a pool between
> >> threads:
> >> >> If a JDBC performance test shows problems - is it the JDBC database,
> >> >> or the pooling implementation?
> >> >> What if the pooling implementation is different from the one in the
> >> >> application one is simulating?
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If we do want to support pooling, it should be selectable.
> >> >> >> However I don't know if there is a standard Pooling API, so
that
> >> might
> >> >> >> not be possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why not use commons-dbcp or tomcat-pool for this ?
> >> >>
> >> >> They are just specific examples of pools; no different really from
> >> >> sticking with Excalibur.
> >> >>
> >> >> If we truly want to allow users to test pooling, they should be able
> >> >> to use any pool they wish, so they can see which one meets their
> needs
> >> >> best.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I suspect this will be quite tricky to allow arbitrary pooling
> >> >> implementations.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Cordialement.
> >> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message