Re: 5.3 CLOSE_WAIT problem and multi instance change notification
Re: 5.3 CLOSE_WAIT problem and multi instance change notification
- Subject: Re: 5.3 CLOSE_WAIT problem and multi instance change notification
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:30:40 -0700
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Hordur Thordarson wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Thanks very much for your answers ! I promise I'll buy your book
now :-)
Don't buy it for me, buy it for the time it will save _you_.
Just a few more questions:
1) At the risk of exposing my ignorance, how do I get a thread dump
from a running java app, preferably via Terminal ?
Well, if you had the book you could start reading on page 92. :-)
In the meantime, a search in the archives should reveal several posts.
2) I've never really liked the idea of change notification to sync
app instances so your proposal sounds very good to me. And indeed
reading Apples EO documentation it appears they agree with you.
(Btw, their documentation has improved enormously since the last
time I was doing WO, 4-5 years ago !!).
Yes, it has!
So, how would you handle the simple (or not) case of two app
instances sharing a database and one instance updates an object and
some related objects that both have previously read and cached ?
There is no one, right answer. It depends on the usage of your
application and the needs of the users to see fresh data. Decide who
can live with stale where, where and when. What you need to do in
your application comes from the answers to those questions.
If they don't communicate the change with change notification then
the only ways I can see are the ones suggested by you/Apple:
- Timed invalidation via EO(F)'s fetch timestamps
This applies only to the first fetch/fault of an object into an
editing context or subsequent refaulting of particular objects.
- Always refreshing using refreshObject or setRefreshesFetchedObjects
Depends on when this is needed.
- The bulldozer way, invalidateAllObjects
Very much a last resort and to be avoided.
My test case is a CMS with a Direct Action based front end
(display) and a Component based back end (editing). If I'm running
two instances of the app and I open up two browser windows, one
displaying a page from the CMS and the other for editing that page,
then every time I refresh the DA page I'll switch app instances due
to round robin load balancing, so sometimes I'll be looking at data
from the same instance I'm editing the page in which is easy to
keep in sync, but sometimes I'll be looking at data from the other
app instance, which is harder to keep fresh.
This scenario must occur fairly often in WO apps that allow editing
of their and it would be great to hear how people are dealing with
this.
Someone else (Ken?) already gave you my answer for this: a preview
URL. Keep the editor and preview in the same session so that they
see the same data. For regular viewers, they can get fresh data when
their session is created / when they first look at something. After
that, they see what they originally saw, the information does not
change on them as they browse. That may or may not work for you.
Chuck
On 11.10.2005, at 22:57, Chuck Hill wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Hordur Thordarson wrote:
Hi all,
I have a client who is running an app of mine on OSX Server 10.4
with WebObjects 5.3, and recently we've been having significant
problems with the app, probably as the load on the app has been
increasing.
Currently there is just 1 instance of the application running.
It will run fine for a while after being restarted, but then the
app will go into a state where according to top it has > 100
threads as opposed to around 40-70 normally, and it will become
unresponsive. Doing a netstat at this point in time shows a lot
of connections in a CLOSE_WAIT state and the only way out is to
kill the instance and restart the WebObjects service.
Is anyone seeing anything like this with OSX Server 10.4 and WO
5.3 ?
Not normally, but your description of > 100 threads sounds like it
is deadlocked somewhere. Have you tried getting a thread dump?
Also, I was wondering if maybe running multiple instances would
help with this
Even having 40 - 70 threads in one instance says that you want to
be running multiple instances. That many threads indicates that
something is blocking / deadlocking or that that instance is way
overloaded.
and wanted to ask what people here are using for multi-instance
db change notification. I've read about Project Wonder's
ERChangeNotificationJMS and there is some old code from David
Neumann of Apple floating around but that's all I've been able to
find. Are you guys using ERChangeNotificationJMS or are you
using homegrown stuff for multi instance sync ?
ERChangeNotificationJMS is a modern version of David Neumann's
code. If I was going to use such a notification system that is
the one that I would choose. So far, I have not found it to be
necessary. You need to plan for object freshness and create new
editing contexts / do refreshing fetches to ensure that you have
data as fresh as you need it. You also need to take care of
optimistic locking conflicts, but those can also happen when using
a change notification system.
Chuck
--
Coming in 2006 - an introduction to web applications using
WebObjects and Xcode http://www.global-village.net/wointro
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve
specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/
practical_webobjects
--
Coming in 2006 - an introduction to web applications using WebObjects
and Xcode http://www.global-village.net/wointro
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden