But in my view, connection leak means, i am not closing SQL
connections
(apart form the fact that i checked this) but then these connections
would be "in use" by the pool and also "in use" by the the server
jobs
that hold the connections. But thats not the case.
The "server jobs" may have vanished entirely, resulting in the
connection wrappers that they checked out from the pool getting
*abandoned*. Unless and until these objects are returned to the pool
by executing close() on them, DBCP considers them active, in use. If
they are never returned, pool capacity is leaked.
THen it would be interesseting to know who is killing the server jobs
on the i5 (IBM) machine if not the pool itself. I am quite sure that
the DB2 on the i5 is not deleting connection jobs because it cant know
if they are still needed. If DBCP is killing them it should not think
at the same time that they are active and wait for a close() call.
In my view, a typical connection leak has plenty of connections on the
DB side (and in the pool of course) which are open and which never get
closed. This is a typical situation.
I will replace DBCP with the other mentioned pool if pool1.4 doesnt
solve it and if i really have a problem with closing connections and
thus leaking, i would face the same problems with C3P0 too.
BTW is there a log level which i can use where DBCP prints out how
many connections he thinks are currently in use by the pool? I mean,
this would be a valuable information for debugging.
Marc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
