Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-15 Thread Phil Steitz
sebb wrote: > On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 1/14/10, sebb wrote: >> > >> > On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: >> > > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we >> > > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate), >> > >> > It's currently

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-14 Thread sebb
On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 1/14/10, sebb wrote: > > > > On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we > > > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate), > > > > It's currently the connection retur

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-14 Thread Phil Steitz
On 1/14/10, sebb wrote: > > On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: > > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we > > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate), > > It's currently the connection returned by getConnection(). > I'll fix that. Should actua

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-14 Thread sebb
On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote: > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate), It's currently the connection returned by getConnection(). I'll fix that. > this is now looking like it could be a pool bug

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-14 Thread Phil Steitz
Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate), this is now looking like it could be a pool bug - allowing more than maxActive distinct connections to be simultaneously active. Need to look at this some more. It i

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-13 Thread sebb
On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > > On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > > > Here is the output from > > > > http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=268733&projectId=22 > > > > > > I've rearranged it so the threads are in ConnectionStart order.

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-13 Thread sebb
On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > > Here is the output from > > > http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=268733&projectId=22 > > > > I've rearranged it so the threads are in ConnectionStart order. > > I moved ConnectionStart to the beginnin

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-13 Thread Phil Steitz
sebb wrote: > Here is the output from > http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=268733&projectId=22 > > I've rearranged it so the threads are in ConnectionStart order. > I moved ConnectionStart to the beginning, added the Thread number at > the end (dropping irrelevant stuff

Re: [DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-13 Thread sebb
On 13/01/2010, sebb wrote: > Here is the output from > > http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=268733&projectId=22 > > I've rearranged it so the threads are in ConnectionStart order. > I moved ConnectionStart to the beginning, added the Thread number at > the end (dro

[DBCP] Continuum failure - discussion of timings

2010-01-12 Thread sebb
Here is the output from http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=268733&projectId=22 I've rearranged it so the threads are in ConnectionStart order. I moved ConnectionStart to the beginning, added the Thread number at the end (dropping irrelevant stuff), and deleted the prefi