Re: ERXJDBCConnectionBroker Question
Re: ERXJDBCConnectionBroker Question
- Subject: Re: ERXJDBCConnectionBroker Question
- From: Dov Rosenberg <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:55:28 -0700
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: ERXJDBCConnectionBroker Question
Is it not a good idea to use the ERXJDBCAdaptor and ConnectionBroker
together?
I would have thought if I only used a single OSC it would have made sure
that each transaction went to the correct connection.
Should there only be a single db connection for each OSC?
Thanks
Dov Rosenberg
On 8/26/10 9:46 PM, "Mike Schrag" <email@hidden> wrote:
> With one osc you saw activity on multiple connections concurrently? I can't
> imagine that scenario has a happy ending. I don't even know how I would be
> possible given that all your db access should be behind a dbc lock. You might
> see use of multiple connections, but that would probably explain your failing
> commits (inserting on conn 1, committing conn 2, maybe). Each osc should end
> up having its own conn and you should see parallel access that way.
>
> To answer more I think I need to not be on an iPhone :)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm - I did a little jmeter test and definitely saw an improvement in page
>> view performance and saw activity on multiple DB connections during the
>> test. By simply adding the connection broker with a single OSC.
>>
>> If I set up object store pooling wont that increase issues with concurrency
>> within my app? I.e. Trying to update data that has already been updated in a
>> different OSC?
>>
>> I am using the Jgroups synchronizer between instances already.
>>
>> Would the following set of properties be consistent with each other:
>>
>> er.extensions.ERXObjectStoreCoordinatorPool.maxCoordinators = 10
>> er.extensions.ERXJDBCAdaptor.className=er.extensions.jdbc.ERXJDBCAdaptor
>> er.extensions.ERXJDBCAdaptor.useConnectionBroker = true
>> er.extensions.remoteSynchronizer.enabled=true
>> er.extensions.remoteSynchronizer=er.jgroups.ERJGroupsSynchronizer
>> dbMinConnectionsGLOBAL=10
>> dbMaxConnectionsGLOBAL=15
>> er.extensions.ERXJDBCConnectionBroker.maxConnections=15
>> er.extensions.ERXJDBCConnectionBroker.minConnections=10
>>
>> If I understand what is going on I should get 10 EOF stacks sharing a pool
>> of 15 database connections. I assume there is some magic running behind the
>> scenes to keep all of the OSC in sync with each other?
>>
>> Thanks again
>>
>> Dov Rosenberg
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/26/10 9:00 PM, "Mike Schrag" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Connection pooling won't really do anything for you because each stack is
>>> single threaded. You want object store coordinator pooling.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Dov Rosenberg <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>> During some testing today I turned on support for connection pooling in my
>>>> application using the ERXJDBCAdaptor and the ERXJDBCConnectionBroker. I
>>>> could
>>>> see the connections being used fine and all of the things that did fetches
>>>> seemed to work without any issues. However when I tried doing something
>>>> that
>>>> generated an INSERT the transactions did not commit and no changes were
>>>> made.
>>>> I could see the SQL being generated as expected and the saveChanges()
>>>> happened without throwing any exception just no data got written to the
>>>> database. As soon as I disabled the use of the connection pool everything
>>>> worked properly again.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts would be appreciated
>>>>
>>>> Dov Rosenberg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
_______________________________________________
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