Just to clarify - I'm asking if turning off the logToDatabase parameter
in statistics.xml is the right way of going about this or is there a
better way?

Thanks,
Raman

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Tallamraju, Raman  
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:25 AM
> To:   'Jetspeed Developers List'
> Subject:      WAS 6.1 JDBC connection leak with Jetspeed
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> We're seeing WAS connection pool misbehave when load testing our
> Jetspeed instance. WAS opens too many connections to our Oracle
> database (after one test we had more that 1000 active connections even
> though the connection pool max size was set to 100) sometimes bringing
> down the database. On further investigation we see the following
> errors repeatedly in the WAS system out logs.
> 
> [11/27/07 2:52:48:071 EST] 00001761 MCWrapper     E   J2CA0081E:
> Method cleanup failed while trying to execute method cleanup on
> ManagedConnection WSRdbMana\
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from resource jdbc/jetspeed. Caught
> exception: com.ibm.ws.exception.WsException: DSRA0080E: An exception
> was received by the Data\
>  Store Adapter. See original exception message: Cannot call 'cleanup'
> on a ManagedConnection while it is still in a transaction..
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.exceptions.DataStoreAdapterException.<init>(DataS
> toreAdapterException.java:236)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.exceptions.DataStoreAdapterException.<init>(DataS
> toreAdapterException.java:185)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.AdapterUtil.createDataStoreAdapterException(Adapt
> erUtil.java:305)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.spi.WSRdbManagedConnectionImpl.cleanupTransaction
> s(WSRdbManagedConnectionImpl.java:3523)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.spi.WSRdbManagedConnectionImpl.cleanup(WSRdbManag
> edConnectionImpl.java:3150)
>         at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.MCWrapper.cleanup(MCWrapper.java:1417)
>         at
> com.ibm.ejs.j2c.FreePool.returnToFreePool(FreePool.java:480)
>         at com.ibm.ejs.j2c.PoolManager.release(PoolManager.java:1653)
>         at
> com.ibm.ejs.j2c.MCWrapper.releaseToPoolManager(MCWrapper.java:2246)
>         at
> com.ibm.ejs.j2c.ConnectionEventListener.connectionClosed(ConnectionEve
> ntListener.java:288)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.spi.WSRdbManagedConnectionImpl.processConnectionC
> losedEvent(WSRdbManagedConnectionImpl.java:1527)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.jdbc.WSJdbcConnection.closeWrapper(WSJdbcConnecti
> on.java:771)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.jdbc.WSJdbcObject.close(WSJdbcObject.java:180)
>         at
> com.ibm.ws.rsadapter.jdbc.WSJdbcObject.close(WSJdbcObject.java:139)
>         at
> org.apache.jetspeed.statistics.impl.BatchedStatistics.releaseConnectio
> n(BatchedStatistics.java:204)
>         at
> org.apache.jetspeed.statistics.impl.BatchedStatistics.flush(BatchedSta
> tistics.java:190)
>         at
> org.apache.jetspeed.statistics.impl.BatchedStatistics.checkAndDoFlush(
> BatchedStatistics.java:86)
>         at
> org.apache.jetspeed.statistics.impl.BatchedStatistics.run(BatchedStati
> stics.java:132)
>         at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:801)
> 
> Looks like Jetspeed statistics is failing to release connections
> because of a known issue with WAS where it isn't able to cleanup
> connections when it thinks a connection is in the middle of a
> transaction that hasn't committed. I've seen a ton of posts related to
> this error a lot of them coming from portals & J2EE transactions in
> general. Looks like WAS will be including a fix for this issue in
> their 6.1.0.13 patch.
> 
> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=404&context=SS7K4U&dc=DB55
> 0&uid=swg1PK52881&loc=en_US&cs=UTF-8&lang=en&rss=ct404websphere
> 
> While we wait for the patch - is there anything we can do on the
> Jetspeed front to prevent this scenario from happening in the first
> place? Would shutting off statistics completely fix this issue? If so,
> how should I go about doing it? Not sure if this is a known issue with
> BatchedStatistics class (you can see the line number in the stack
> trace).
> 
> Thanks,
> Raman
> 

Reply via email to