Re: pros/cons of dedicated vs. MTS connections?

Joe Weinstein wrote:
> Hi. I have an application which makes several (10-50)
> separate JDBC connections to an Oracle DBMS, and uses
> these connections indefinitely. Can you tell me any
> reason I would prefer or care about whether the DBMS
> is configured sa MTS or not?

Joe, I use MTS as a default. Have since 8i. MTS works. And works well. Is not complex. Is not buggy or <insert other Usenet rumours here>.

I will especially insist on using MTS for JDBC connections - assuming this is from an app server. I have lost count of the number of times app servers fail to close connections when done (guess this can be called pooled connection leaking on the app server side).

This results in idle sessions on the Oracle side that gets 100's of hours old and are never used again. And the sessions only become closed when the actual app server itself is bounced (forcing all socket handles on it side to be closed). DCD (Dead Connection Detection) from the Oracle Listener does not work as the actual socket handle is still open on the JDBC/appserver side.

As for using MTS for only 1000+ connections? BULLSHIT!

With Dedicated Server (specifically talking Unix here), every server process is a Unix process. It takes up kernel resources and memory resources. There are ulimits and kernel limits and most of all, memory utilisation, to consider. Dedicated Server does not scale. MTS does. A statement of fact and not opinion.

Now, do you only start to consider using MTS for scalability when dealing with more than a 1000 connection? Or do you design and configure FROM THE START for a system to be scalable?

--
Billy