Is it not a good idea to use the ERXJDBCAdaptor and ConnectionBroker together?
I would have thought if I only used a single OSC it would have made sure that each transaction went to the correct connection. Should there only be a single db connection for each OSC? Thanks Dov Rosenberg On 8/26/10 9:46 PM, "Mike Schrag" <msch...@pobox.com> wrote: > With one osc you saw activity on multiple connections concurrently? I can't > imagine that scenario has a happy ending. I don't even know how I would be > possible given that all your db access should be behind a dbc lock. You might > see use of multiple connections, but that would probably explain your failing > commits (inserting on conn 1, committing conn 2, maybe). Each osc should end > up having its own conn and you should see parallel access that way. > > To answer more I think I need to not be on an iPhone :) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg <drosenb...@inquira.com> wrote: > >> Hmmm - I did a little jmeter test and definitely saw an improvement in page >> view performance and saw activity on multiple DB connections during the >> test. By simply adding the connection broker with a single OSC. >> >> If I set up object store pooling wont that increase issues with concurrency >> within my app? I.e. Trying to update data that has already been updated in a >> different OSC? >> >> I am using the Jgroups synchronizer between instances already. >> >> Would the following set of properties be consistent with each other: >> >> er.extensions.ERXObjectStoreCoordinatorPool.maxCoordinators = 10 >> er.extensions.ERXJDBCAdaptor.className=er.extensions.jdbc.ERXJDBCAdaptor >> er.extensions.ERXJDBCAdaptor.useConnectionBroker = true >> er.extensions.remoteSynchronizer.enabled=true >> er.extensions.remoteSynchronizer=er.jgroups.ERJGroupsSynchronizer >> dbMinConnectionsGLOBAL=10 >> dbMaxConnectionsGLOBAL=15 >> er.extensions.ERXJDBCConnectionBroker.maxConnections=15 >> er.extensions.ERXJDBCConnectionBroker.minConnections=10 >> >> If I understand what is going on I should get 10 EOF stacks sharing a pool >> of 15 database connections. I assume there is some magic running behind the >> scenes to keep all of the OSC in sync with each other? >> >> Thanks again >> >> Dov Rosenberg >> >> >> >> On 8/26/10 9:00 PM, "Mike Schrag" <msch...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >>> Connection pooling won't really do anything for you because each stack is >>> single threaded. You want object store coordinator pooling. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Dov Rosenberg <drosenb...@inquira.com> wrote: >>> >>>> During some testing today I turned on support for connection pooling in my >>>> application using the ERXJDBCAdaptor and the ERXJDBCConnectionBroker. I >>>> could >>>> see the connections being used fine and all of the things that did fetches >>>> seemed to work without any issues. However when I tried doing something >>>> that >>>> generated an INSERT the transactions did not commit and no changes were >>>> made. >>>> I could see the SQL being generated as expected and the saveChanges() >>>> happened without throwing any exception just no data got written to the >>>> database. As soon as I disabled the use of the connection pool everything >>>> worked properly again. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts would be appreciated >>>> >>>> Dov Rosenberg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40pobox.com >>>> >>>> This email sent to msch...@pobox.com >> _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
