Re: Overhead of load-balanced microservices architecture

I want to thank everyone for the dialog on this subject. I have convinced the Dev team to rethink their minimum health-check requirements. We will also be investigating an increase in the number of persistent connections in the application connection pools. I wasn't familiar with DRCP, and its good to know that I have that feature in my back pocket if needed.

Doug

> On August 13, 2020 at 9:30 AM Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/13/20 11:28 AM, Mark W. Farnham wrote:
>
> > > Keeping in mind the possible death by inches problem of TOO many open Oracle sessions (clarified if you need by Graham Wood’s realworld demos and videos), the 1980’s implementation of leaving a service daemon running with an open Oracle connection is a fast response, low cost way to do this. Back in the day, we programmed these in OCI (Oracle Call Interface) to make it easier to implement the daemons in C, which was the natural programming language for UNIX and things built by copying the architecture and design of UNIX.
> >
> > >
> That is, basically, the same thing as suggested by Frank Gordon: pooled connection, with the pool size of 1. That does simplify the incessant connection attempts and make them cheaper. However, resource-wise, a monolithic application will probably be cheaper and perform better than the fabled micro-services. My impression is that people are switching to micro services as a matter of fashion. Speaking of micro services, does anyone have an experience with micro services based Golden Gate? I've used trail files, extract, replicat and data pump processes, have configured reporting and am well versed in ggserr.log arcane messages but have no experience whatsoever with the micro-services architecture. Is it still the same?
>
>
> --
> Mladen Gogala
> Database Consultant
> Tel: (347) 321-1217
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l