No, the firewall is in front of the load balancers and
the servers are separated from the network by the dmz.
 At some point there will be a reverse proxy in there
somewhere (they tell me - I'm not a network engineer),
but at the moment it's not open to the internet so I
just have it directly opened to the db.

Thanks for the chat anyway.  I have not used a
profiler for a Win32 web server before.  Do you have
any recommendation?

-marc

--- Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> sounds like you have a big big mainframe, so I also
> doubt the database
> server is an issue. Is there any firewall between
> tomcat and the database
> server?  it could be the firewall is limiting the
> number of connections and
> therefore forcing the db connection pool to wait
> longer than it should to
> create a new connection.
> 
> beyond that, about the only way would be to start
> tomcat using a profiler
> and see exactly what is blocking.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> On 12/15/05, Marc Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, the db is actually our world-wide enterprise
> > server.  It's got plenty of capacity for handling
> many
> > hundreds of thousands of daily transactions.  When
> I'm
> > pounding the web app I literally can not even see
> my
> > activity on the machine and the disk arms are all
> > calm.  It's made for tougher stuff than I'll ever
> be
> > able to throw at it (due to JDE client programs
> being
> > so chatty, it's necessary to have a very powerful
> db
> > when you run OneWorld).
> >
> > It's kind of hard to track how many open db
> > connections there are from the db end because
> normally
> > there are many thousands to begin with and the
> number
> > fluctuates by leaps and bounds just as a course of
> > doing regular business.
> >
> > I'm not sure that my sessions are of too much
> concern
> > at the moment either because when I check the
> server
> > boxes I'm seeing that Tomcat is only using between
> 200
> > and 400 mg of RAM and there is 4gb available.  I
> don't
> > have a short session kill time (I think it's two
> hours
> > at the moment), but I am failing them out to disk
> > every few minutes, so inactive sessions should be
> > staying out of physical memory.  And by the low
> memory
> > consumption of Tomcat under load, I'd say that
> part is
> > probably working ok (and also because I can see
> all of
> > the db records in the session table).
> >
> > I haven't gotten any complaints from the db on the
> > session table itself, but that doesn't mean that
> there
> > isn't collusion because there could be some
> locking
> > issues taking place that would cause session
> backups
> > and restores to take on some latency.  The db
> won't
> > complain about a locking issue and I haven't been
> able
> > to find any myself, but due to the fact that each
> > connection appears to open, read/write and then
> > abandon, locks would come and go so quickly that I
> > probably wouldn't be able to see them anyway.
> >
> > I did notice that the db performance optimizer was
> > spending some extra time analyzing the sessions
> table,
> > but I think that's because it regularly gets a
> bunch
> > of records pumped to it and then it clears out as
> > sessions become invalidated.  It's really quite
> > under-used compared to most of the JDE tables on
> the
> > system.
> >
> > I was concerned about the maxThreads for a time
> (and
> > actually did have a problem because Apache's was
> set
> > higher and puking when it over-ran).  But I got
> tired
> > of tweaking for this and just set it at 5000 to
> see
> > what would happen.  I think the default is only
> 50, so
> > I thought 10x would represent a 'big' site.  Am I
> > wrong?  It didn't change a thing by setting it
> that
> > high.  How do you check the queue depth?  I'm not
> sure
> > I'm familiar with that one...
> >
> > -
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to