Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jmeter.apache.org
To: dev@jmeter.apache.org
From: Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@internetallee.de>
Subject: doc for jdbc pool configuration
Message-ID: <5687EEE3.3070603@internetallee.de>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:38:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all,

in our documentation there is one section about the sizing of the pool, 
which I like to discuss:

"If you really want to use shared pooling (why?), then set the max count 
to the same as the number of threads to ensure threads don't wait on 
each other."

First: I think pooling is a valid option even for user-centric 
scenarios. Think about simulating the sql requests of an application 
server. In such a case a pool would have been used, so why not when 
simulating it?

So for this part, I question the part "...(why?)..." and the "really" in 
front of it.

Second: When a pool is used (at least the dbcp2 pool) the connections 
seem to be stored in a stack like construct. So in a uncontended load 
situation the pool will use only a fraction of the configured size and 
in a contended situation with really many threads it will probably 
overload the db.

So all in all I would rather change the sentence to something like "If 
you want to use shared pooling, then set the max count to something 
sensible".

Regards,
  Felix