Yeah I didn’t consider that relevant at the time. All examples of creating a
jdbc connection pool for SQL server on tomcat did not have specifying the
factory in them. So I didn’t consider it relevant. My bad.
Shawn Beard • Sr. Systems Engineer
Middleware Engineering
[cid:[email protected]]
3840 109th Street , Urbandale , IA 50322
Phone: +1-515-564-2528<tel:+1-515-564-2528>
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Website: https://berkleytechnologyservices.com/
[cid:[email protected]]
Technology Leadership Unleashing Business Potential
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Schultz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 7:22 AM
To: Tomcat Users List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: jdbc connction pool issues [EXTERNAL]
** CAUTION: External message
Shawn,
On 12/17/20 14:21, Beard, Shawn wrote:
> Well the other tomcat servers had a custom factory specified. That was
> the only difference. (devs wrote their own library for it)
So they were different. It's always misleading when getting a report like this:
On 12/15/20 15:35, Beard, Shawn wrote:
> Other tomcat servers with exact same jdbc connection pool config(only
> difference is servername, databasename, user and pass) show 50 max
> connections, which is what maxActive is set to.
So you can see why we were maybe confused about what was happening.
-chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the transmitted documents contain
private, privileged and confidential information belonging to the sender. The
information therein is solely for the use of the addressee. If your receipt of
this transmission has occurred as the result of an error, please immediately
notify us so we can arrange for the return of the documents. In such
circumstances, you are advised that you may not disclose, copy, distribute or
take any other action in reliance on the information transmitted.
