Re: Webserver 2.1 Cartrige problems

On 26 Apr 1997 10:14:42 GMT, Torsten.Greiff_at_t-online.de (Torsten Greiff) wrote:

>We had developed a large Web app. using OWS 2.1 on NT with .
>Netscape or ORACLE HTTP Server
>Architecture:
>The Cartridges are written in C++ /OCI (9 cartridges) connecting ORACLE
>7.3 on a separate machine (we can't use the PL/SQL Agent for this app).
>During WRB_Init of the cartdriges we connect to the database and we keep
>the connection until the Server shuts down (WRB_Shutdown).
>This architecture is not very stable because if someone is reloading a
>page 10 times(or more) the request broker spawns new instances of the
>cartridge, but most of them are hanging and we have many dead connections
>on the database. Also the Webserver is completly hanging from time to
>time and we can't stop the listener (ORACLE Listener or Netscape).
>If we do a connect on WRB_Exec
>and after all work is done a disconnect, everything works fine.

This is the same problem we are having at the University of Idaho. We are using the PL/SQL agent with the number of connections set to 16. All you have to do to inactivate a session is to start the request with netscape, and then cancel it before it has been returned. The connection is now dead! When we have 1000+ students trying to register for classes and only 16 connections, the students get impatient and keep hitting the reload button even though they may be getting through but our database hasn't returned anything. This kills the session and after 16 of these sessions are dead, the listener will only return "the server is busy" and is essentially useless. We have our web server resetting every hour to clean up these dead connections. We cannot stop the listener and then restart it because it will never start up again.

I havn't found an answer to this problem yet. I hope somebody can help!!

>
>Is this an OCI/SQL*Net or a Request Broker problem ?
>We don't want to connect and disconnect each time a request is comming in
>from a client because of performance issues.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>thanks,
> T.G.
Received on Mon Apr 28 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT