Rainer Frey wrote:
On 12.03.2013, at 17:14, Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
wrote:
On 3/12/13 7:54 AM, amit shah wrote:
I am using Oracle. Oracle JDBC Driver provides the Oracle
Universal Connection Pool (UCP) which includes this
feature<http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/java.112/e16548/fstconfo.htm>of
connection failover but since we use tomcat jdbc connection pool we
cannot use UCP.
Why not?
Because it would be two-level pooling?
Also UCP has lot of synchronized code which leads to blocking
threads and less concurrency support.
Let me know your suggestions/thoughts.
I'm thinking that a low-performance fail-over is preferable to a
zero-performance non-fail-over.
Well, low overall performance, but possibility of failover in the hopefully
rare case,
may not be acceptable compared to high(er) overall performance and a search for
other ways
to perform failover.
I am not sure that I totally follow the arguments here, but it seems that there
exist
- a JDBC pool with good performance, but no fail-over
- a JDBC pool with failover, but bad performance
Why not move the problem one level higher, and instead of using one tomcat with several
pools, use several tomcats each with their own pool ?
Several tomcats can be configured as a "failover pool" of tomcats, no ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
