> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Daad, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | i think i don't get the utility of a connection pooling, since i have > this situation: 30 threads try to perform at same time a db access with > the call: > | > | new Database().doSomething() > > Are you sure you're using your Database class in this way? I wouldn't be > surprised if you are creating a single Database object and using it > repeatedly.
Yes i'm sure, i'm using (new Database()).doSomething() always. > > Are your threads actually running in parallel? > That's my question. > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:03] INFO Database -> doSomething: 836 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:04] INFO Database -> doSomething: 1444 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:04] INFO Database -> doSomething: 2054 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:05] INFO Database -> doSomething: 2417 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:05] INFO Database -> doSomething: 3060 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:06] INFO Database -> doSomething: 3647 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:07] INFO Database -> doSomething: 4279 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:07] INFO Database -> doSomething: 4967 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:08] INFO Database -> doSomething: 5592 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:09] INFO Database -> doSomething: 6208 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:09] INFO Database -> doSomething: 7026 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:10] INFO Database -> doSomething: 7455 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:10] INFO Database -> doSomething: 8087 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:11] INFO Database -> doSomething: 8705 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:12] INFO Database -> doSomething: 9318 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:12] INFO Database -> doSomething: 10040 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:13] INFO Database -> doSomething: 11146 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:14] INFO Database -> doSomething: 11702 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:14] INFO Database -> doSomething: 12033 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:15] INFO Database -> doSomething: 12658 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:16] INFO Database -> doSomething: 13279 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:16] INFO Database -> doSomething: 13897 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:17] INFO Database -> doSomething: 14523 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:17] INFO Database -> doSomething: 15139 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:18] INFO Database -> doSomething: 15759 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:19] INFO Database -> doSomething: 16411 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:19] INFO Database -> doSomething: 17056 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:20] INFO Database -> doSomething: 17672 > | [wed, 09 apr 2008 00:55:20] INFO Database -> doSomething: 18292 > > Every single operation takes more time than the previous operation. That > smells of a problem with resetting a counter. Isn't it interesting that > the logging statements show that all 30 threads completed within 18 > seconds of each other, and each thread says that it took up to 18 > seconds to complete? If these processes were sharing a single > connection, and they were taking 18 seconds to complete, the total time > would be 9 minutes, not 18 seconds. > As you can see from the code i pasted, start time is taken in getConnection() method and end time is taken in closeResources() method. So from the logs i understand that all 30 threads arrive in getConnection() at same time (so all "start" variable of each Database instance is set to same timestamp (about)), but then seems that operation get enqueued, since the first thread that is able to quit needs 836ms, while the last one 18292ms. That means the second thread that can perform the query waited that first thread complete the query. So, even if the second thread arrived to getConnection() at same time of the first, the second took almost double time because waited that the first complete the task. That's what i understood from logs... I didn't get what you said about 9 minutes. If the operation takes 600-800ms (as first thread demonstrate), 30 x 600 = 18000ms. So with one connection, if those 30 threads are enqueued, the total time is 18 seconds, that is what happens. So i still think that one connection is shared only =\ If anybody know what to check on Mysql application to see if there is a sort of limitation on number of concurrent queries, please let me know. > Even if you had resource contention (which you shouldn't have with 600 > shared connections), I would expect that some numbers would be low and > others were high -- essentially randomly distributed. > > It's pretty clear to me that something else is going on... I'm guessing > that the connection pool (which one are you using?) is working just > fine, but either your "load test" code or your server-side database use > is being incorrectly used and/or incorrectly instrumented. > I'm using mysql-connector-java-5.1.5-bin.jar > | so i can't understand the meaning of maxActive parameter.. i thought > | that could be at most 600 concurrent connection. > > ~From the documentation: "The maximum number of active connections that > can be allocated from this pool at the same time, or negative for no limit." > > Your expectation that 600 connections should be available is correct. > Although, 600 connections in a connection pool is a /lot/ of connections. ;) > > - -chris > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkf8yAkACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PAGtgCeL5O0jUrxfZZZM/3ix3pbmrWV > kgcAnR1wlDWpS9ez9FE/uNHzKptqTCmc > =mSOU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
