Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!af4f5987!not-for-mail From: Mark Bole User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: pros/cons of dedicated vs. MTS connections? References: <43274985$1@news.beasys.com> <1126678789.683773.95020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1126678789.683773.95020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 53 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.224.0.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1126713647 ST000 69.224.0.209 (Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:00:47 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:00:47 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: [[PA@SRDTZTWRQH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BT]UEK@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:00:47 GMT Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.oracle.server:251503 Billy wrote: > 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? [...] > > 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). That's the whole point of a JDBC connection pool -- you never close the connection. [...] > > 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. > This is the exact same argument you use for claiming that one should never ever run more than one Oracle instance on a machine. Following this logic, you must be running all your Unix boxes in single user mode, since obviously multi-user mode leads to inefficient use of memory and kernel resources and is not scalable. And you must always ride on a bus or train, since a passenger car or bicycle does not scale very well either. And then there's your cozy dormitory bed, since a personal bedroom does not scale very well. > 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? If you have a scalabity problem, then by all means use shared server (it's not called MTS anymore since it never was multi-threaded) to address it. If you don't have a scalability problem, then don't worry about it (I suspect this suggestion will be lost on you, since in your world you appear to always and everywhere have a scalability problem). And since you can use either or both at the same time, there is no cost to starting one way and then changing later if it makes sense. -Mark Bole