You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com> on 2013/11/27 23:32:14 UTC
Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
I have two instances of Tomcat 7.0.42, each on their own physical server
(RHEL6). There's nothing in front of them, I'm using IPTABLES to route 80
to 8080. They're clustered using the native Tomcat clustering. I'm using
the non blocking NIO connector.
Everything behaves as expected, except after 600 seconds (10 minutes) all
the pooled connections expire. As far as I can tell the default is to not
remove/evict pooled connections below 'minIdle' but that's what's
happening. The only thing I can find that relates to connection pools and
600 seconds is in JK, but I'm not using that. Any ideas?
Both servers have the same configuration The connection pool is configured
in context.xml:
<Resource name="jdbc/my_db"
auth="Container"
type="javax.sql.DataSource"
username="tomcat_db_user"
password="xxxxxxxxx"
driverClassName="com.mysql.jdbc.Driver"
url="jdbc:mysql://192.168.100.51:3306/my_db"
maxActive="200"
maxIdle="100"
maxWait="20000"
initialSize="10"
minIdle="10"
/>
And in web.xml/
<!-- JNDI resource for the database -->
<resource-ref>
<description>My Database</description>
<res-ref-name>jdbc/my_db</res-ref-name>
<res-type>javax.sql.DataSource</res-type>
<res-auth>Container</res-auth>
</resource-ref>
TIA,
Alec
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, that's good to know, especially about the validationInterval
setting. The idea of not validating every single time seems more reasonable.
-Alec
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com>wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra overhead
> > when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the default way.
>
> The overhead is typically minimal. Running "SELECT 1" or some other very
> simply query is not likely to bring your database to it's knees. It might
> add a small amount of latency as the pool will need to execute the query
> before it give the connection to your application, but that's likely to be
> dwarfed by whatever your application does with the connection after it gets
> it.
>
> If you are concerned you can do a couple things to make the process even
> more lightweight.
>
> 1.) With MySQL and use "/* ping */ SELECT 1" as the validation query.
> This is a special case with the MySQL JDBC driver that uses even less
> resources.
>
> 2.) You can use the tomcat-jdbc connection pool which has a
> validationInterval setting. This will ensure that the validation query is
> only executed one time during the specified time interval.
>
> ...or you can go without a validation query, but it's not something I
> would recommend and not something I see done very often. The minimal
> overhead is usually worth knowing that you get a valid connection from the
> pool.
>
> Dan
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 2, 2013 10:09 PM, "Neven Cvetkovic" <ne...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 2, 2013 12:47 PM, "Tomcat Random" <to...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Neven, thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You're welcome :)
> >>>
> >>> I am curious why tomcat didn't renew expired (terminated) idle
> >> connections
> >>> though.
> >>
> >> It wouldn't know that the connections have been disconnected, since they
> >> were disconnected server side. If the user added a validation query
> then
> >> it could detect and remove the closed connections.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>.
"I think without a validationQuery, your pool will effectively dry-up over
time."
I'm expecting some very high traffic, so it's unlikely if not impossible a
connection will timeout on the mysql side with the default settings. All
connections are safely returned to the pool (famous last words, I know), so
I'm holding off to see if I do see the pool shrinking over time, and if I'm
getting "already closed" exceptions. If that's the case the validation
query and validationInterval are certainly not a great expense. It's good
advice, but I'm just curious if they are absolutely necessary
Cheers,
Alec
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Dan,
>
> On 12/3/13, 12:32 PM, Daniel Mikusa wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Tomcat Random
> > <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra
> >> overhead when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the
> >> default way.
> >
> > The overhead is typically minimal. Running "SELECT 1" or some
> > other very simply query is not likely to bring your database to
> > it's knees. It might add a small amount of latency as the pool
> > will need to execute the query before it give the connection to
> > your application, but that's likely to be dwarfed by whatever your
> > application does with the connection after it gets it.
> >
> > If you are concerned you can do a couple things to make the process
> > even more lightweight.
> >
> > 1.) With MySQL and use "/* ping */ SELECT 1" as the validation
> > query. This is a special case with the MySQL JDBC driver that uses
> > even less resources.
>
> +1
>
> We use this everywhere. I've never actually benchmarked it, but since
> it does not execute a query on the server, it pretty much has to be
> faster by any measure.
>
> > 2.) You can use the tomcat-jdbc connection pool which has a
> > validationInterval setting. This will ensure that the validation
> > query is only executed one time during the specified time interval.
> >
> I haven't moved to tomcat-pool yet, but this was my initial reaction
> to Alec's question about usually not needing the validation query.
>
> > ...or you can go without a validation query, but it's not something
> > I would recommend and not something I see done very often. The
> > minimal overhead is usually worth knowing that you get a valid
> > connection from the pool.
>
> +1
>
> If you don't use a validation query, you need additional try/catch
> blocks around all your "getConnection()" calls, and a loop to re-try
> just in case the first connection was bad.
>
> I think without a validationQuery, your pool will effectively dry-up
> over time.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSn236AAoJEBzwKT+lPKRY85sQAMTss/RPDRep+yUhOxCCdCOF
> 8d2ZhzeDwZ/lM0d+XlH9ZJzbBdwQEpRyZf/uzQRQLK/WO/vReXN3RMptSrN+VoLE
> TaqWcGva1NPvUOwrMKd1Hm8zKqtcamWTQIHa1MzQ/cN9RChmZbfNwc7CteuTd36C
> zvXoj1nRhkixfE4jX2/REDtAh0QKQkCj/Dq1BpOlEzJaGwmL/fbwJreUvPiGNvaO
> xQaCr92Z/Srv32oLCBCu3fs8/FN2KvLKB2YKFWB2iHrRvxiIC7tUWUp9OkZvJga2
> ARs7UraFNl/Z+vi8xV2S1cavJD+jeW4ddB5QDr+1yxWRPt0QEE0UzaolATVTUak9
> 9cRb+87xICd5z/XoFABSPqeicyS/1/cxg/JOHrFtcM8EmXZifB4aVLpnjIqHrRC/
> Y3LoCjaIBO78/0i75kC0zeS2opTXMlrvEy/0W/QA8XwGmy7yEvZhbER+TVeHsAcD
> 6evobH5bbSbnxXgB4o826/ihxMq3JxfZWuaGvCmgB4D4aI0SbtdNP+/SHwirGZA1
> Lt/iRCFAGFtJTMygVQZzBn+gbO3mMx7vxesIFbmKRDcUWpQ7MVrs5Wq9mfLUFJp8
> YnQS66MM10Nf3O0qNavBN5af4Cq1E+GvcuydchpbDHwd7czkidzLQcGbyIiBpnTq
> HR5uraaRm89AZ5zUKShW
> =9ync
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by "Howard W. Smith, Jr." <sm...@gmail.com>.
Alec, Dan, and Chris,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Dan,
>
> On 12/3/13, 12:32 PM, Daniel Mikusa wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Tomcat Random
> > <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra
> >> overhead when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the
> >> default way.
> >
> > The overhead is typically minimal. Running "SELECT 1" or some
> > other very simply query is not likely to bring your database to
> > it's knees. It might add a small amount of latency as the pool
> > will need to execute the query before it give the connection to
> > your application, but that's likely to be dwarfed by whatever your
> > application does with the connection after it gets it.
> >
> > If you are concerned you can do a couple things to make the process
> > even more lightweight.
> >
> > 1.) With MySQL and use "/* ping */ SELECT 1" as the validation
> > query. This is a special case with the MySQL JDBC driver that uses
> > even less resources.
>
> +1
>
> We use this everywhere. I've never actually benchmarked it, but since
> it does not execute a query on the server, it pretty much has to be
> faster by any measure.
>
> > 2.) You can use the tomcat-jdbc connection pool which has a
> > validationInterval setting. This will ensure that the validation
> > query is only executed one time during the specified time interval.
> >
> I haven't moved to tomcat-pool yet, but this was my initial reaction
> to Alec's question about usually not needing the validation query.
>
> > ...or you can go without a validation query, but it's not something
> > I would recommend and not something I see done very often. The
> > minimal overhead is usually worth knowing that you get a valid
> > connection from the pool.
>
> +1
>
> If you don't use a validation query, you need additional try/catch
> blocks around all your "getConnection()" calls, and a loop to re-try
> just in case the first connection was bad.
>
> I think without a validationQuery, your pool will effectively dry-up
> over time.
>
+1 interesting topic and responses. Thanks!
Since I'm using TomEE, tomcat jdbc pool is default, and below is the config.
<Resource id="jdbc/dbJta" type="javax.sql.DataSource">
JdbcDriver org.apache.derby.jdbc.EmbeddedDriver
JdbcUrl jdbc:derby:X:/myPathToMyDB;create=true
UserName ....
Password ....
JtaManaged true
jmxEnabled true
InitialSize 10
MaxActive 30
MaxIdle 20
MaxWait 10000
minIdle 10
suspectTimeout 60
removeAbandoned true
removeAbandonedTimeout 180
timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis 30000
jdbcInterceptors=StatementCache(max=1024)
</Resource>
As you can see, I am one of those rare cases that Dan mentioned...not using
validationQuery. Not so much intentional, but I'm still somewhat novice as
tomcat user.
With that said, I have not had the need to add try/catch to ensure I get a
good connection from the pool. I don't have high traffic coming to my web
app, but there are times when multiple users are using the app, and I see
absolutely 'no' connection issues (ever), and performance is quite
good/sound as well.
So, I do hear the recommendations, in this thread, about validation query,
but my app has not told me yet...that it needs the validation query. :)
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Dan,
On 12/3/13, 12:32 PM, Daniel Mikusa wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Tomcat Random
> <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra
>> overhead when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the
>> default way.
>
> The overhead is typically minimal. Running "SELECT 1" or some
> other very simply query is not likely to bring your database to
> it's knees. It might add a small amount of latency as the pool
> will need to execute the query before it give the connection to
> your application, but that's likely to be dwarfed by whatever your
> application does with the connection after it gets it.
>
> If you are concerned you can do a couple things to make the process
> even more lightweight.
>
> 1.) With MySQL and use "/* ping */ SELECT 1" as the validation
> query. This is a special case with the MySQL JDBC driver that uses
> even less resources.
+1
We use this everywhere. I've never actually benchmarked it, but since
it does not execute a query on the server, it pretty much has to be
faster by any measure.
> 2.) You can use the tomcat-jdbc connection pool which has a
> validationInterval setting. This will ensure that the validation
> query is only executed one time during the specified time interval.
>
I haven't moved to tomcat-pool yet, but this was my initial reaction
to Alec's question about usually not needing the validation query.
> ...or you can go without a validation query, but it's not something
> I would recommend and not something I see done very often. The
> minimal overhead is usually worth knowing that you get a valid
> connection from the pool.
+1
If you don't use a validation query, you need additional try/catch
blocks around all your "getConnection()" calls, and a loop to re-try
just in case the first connection was bad.
I think without a validationQuery, your pool will effectively dry-up
over time.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=9ync
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com>.
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra overhead
> when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the default way.
The overhead is typically minimal. Running "SELECT 1" or some other very simply query is not likely to bring your database to it's knees. It might add a small amount of latency as the pool will need to execute the query before it give the connection to your application, but that's likely to be dwarfed by whatever your application does with the connection after it gets it.
If you are concerned you can do a couple things to make the process even more lightweight.
1.) With MySQL and use "/* ping */ SELECT 1" as the validation query. This is a special case with the MySQL JDBC driver that uses even less resources.
2.) You can use the tomcat-jdbc connection pool which has a validationInterval setting. This will ensure that the validation query is only executed one time during the specified time interval.
...or you can go without a validation query, but it's not something I would recommend and not something I see done very often. The minimal overhead is usually worth knowing that you get a valid connection from the pool.
Dan
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 2013 10:09 PM, "Neven Cvetkovic" <ne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2013 12:47 PM, "Tomcat Random" <to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Neven, thank you.
>>>>
>>>> It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're welcome :)
>>>
>>> I am curious why tomcat didn't renew expired (terminated) idle
>> connections
>>> though.
>>
>> It wouldn't know that the connections have been disconnected, since they
>> were disconnected server side. If the user added a validation query then
>> it could detect and remove the closed connections.
>>
>> Dan
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>.
I considered using a validation query but it seemed like extra overhead
when the default behavior was not, um, behaving in the default way.
-Alec
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2013 10:09 PM, "Neven Cvetkovic" <ne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2013 12:47 PM, "Tomcat Random" <to...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Neven, thank you.
> > >
> > > It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
> > >
> >
> > You're welcome :)
> >
> > I am curious why tomcat didn't renew expired (terminated) idle
> connections
> > though.
>
> It wouldn't know that the connections have been disconnected, since they
> were disconnected server side. If the user added a validation query then
> it could detect and remove the closed connections.
>
> Dan
>
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Daniel Mikusa <dm...@gopivotal.com>.
On Dec 2, 2013 10:09 PM, "Neven Cvetkovic" <ne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2013 12:47 PM, "Tomcat Random" <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Neven, thank you.
> >
> > It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
> >
>
> You're welcome :)
>
> I am curious why tomcat didn't renew expired (terminated) idle connections
> though.
It wouldn't know that the connections have been disconnected, since they
were disconnected server side. If the user added a validation query then
it could detect and remove the closed connections.
Dan
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Neven Cvetkovic <ne...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 2, 2013 12:47 PM, "Tomcat Random" <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Neven, thank you.
>
> It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
>
You're welcome :)
I am curious why tomcat didn't renew expired (terminated) idle connections
though.
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>.
Neven, thank you.
It was right there in my.cnf: 'wait_timeout=600'
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Neven,
>
> On 11/27/13, 6:35 PM, Neven Cvetkovic wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tomcat Random
> >> <tomcat.random@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Everything behaves as expected, except after 600 seconds (10
> >>> minutes) all the pooled connections expire. As far as I can
> >>> tell the default is to not remove/evict pooled connections
> >>> below 'minIdle' but that's what's happening. The only thing I
> >>> can find that relates to connection pools and 600 seconds is in
> >>> JK, but I'm not using that. Any ideas?
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Hey Alec,
> >
> > Can it be that connections are timed out on the mysql side?
>
> +1
>
> Sounds like it might be a router connection-idle-timeout issue and
> maybe not anything to do directly with MySQL.
>
> - -chris
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSmR5pAAoJEBzwKT+lPKRY0oQP/2aEHo+L6l07WUGkL+qZ6FhR
> kgxSlIqu75uCNxHdr0ApqEzDVma0IJeLTJYJomiEJ3ZZFFy0FasWPUGIiO1ssB/e
> iTr1ttR5rJh8atw7WoAPvVFHvjOA86WZ6/pn5FW9HNGYe5VzsmaUPPfWmdVd+JP2
> 8jmaV0Cx1CfYVoEMKjEfPrQP5+KnNuYj+KgUwBOb7+B1kAbmyvz4Ri0g3l0t/WIl
> pE2cD8ZPXT2nYPtNViReLwHOWEAKrM/lLl7bTn6/+foBl8f1AtY95Ck9oBc8f5/c
> OavEGV0ESVsLmMJs2j6kGkfaVyaD91INHs+lMZ2DqtQZAEwMi05VBFxJztLF8pBB
> 67XDG8EvlKM7vXtIC+qKmVcUbbEd+MAD75Hcydi+TBQipYtxA/Js/uoLmNMP3CSH
> 0QuYpRa/ua2imvLZN6x7CP4AoIiAsKGQsV21kLJL77xC15CpjxLL1LcqsMmI2llE
> 4P3SSPrwZtRbdGFNn4Ou9X1M0van3N+hGv4VqXfFxsn8Zj1IL56YJohSz8j9KGJ6
> rQhvxTplu4ifAoSvcrCc+78Gw7KgVOcHbWziHWQlGXTKFJUUeV71iwIABv10FZ6t
> +xMQSPVS9xGzrlpnSdJExFUHNKq2XYpenI2wPvdHY3rdNTcrAOqw5A3HSOwyGbhd
> 78xu0nfsJuFEw+2x0qQk
> =VgsO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Neven,
On 11/27/13, 6:35 PM, Neven Cvetkovic wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tomcat Random
>> <tomcat.random@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Everything behaves as expected, except after 600 seconds (10
>>> minutes) all the pooled connections expire. As far as I can
>>> tell the default is to not remove/evict pooled connections
>>> below 'minIdle' but that's what's happening. The only thing I
>>> can find that relates to connection pools and 600 seconds is in
>>> JK, but I'm not using that. Any ideas?
>>>
>>
>
> Hey Alec,
>
> Can it be that connections are timed out on the mysql side?
+1
Sounds like it might be a router connection-idle-timeout issue and
maybe not anything to do directly with MySQL.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=VgsO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Neven Cvetkovic <ne...@gmail.com>.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tomcat Random <tomcat.random@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Everything behaves as expected, except after 600 seconds (10 minutes) all
> > the pooled connections expire. As far as I can tell the default is to not
> > remove/evict pooled connections below 'minIdle' but that's what's
> > happening. The only thing I can find that relates to connection pools and
> > 600 seconds is in JK, but I'm not using that. Any ideas?
> >
>
Hey Alec,
Can it be that connections are timed out on the mysql side?
What does your /etc/my.cnf (or wherever mysql is configured) say about
connections?
What are wait_timeout and interactive_timeout settings in the mysql
configuration file?
(although Tomcat should maintain your pool of connections, with minIdle
number of them at any time)
You can tweak things on the Tomcat side too:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jndi-resources-howto.html
(see Ch4. Configure Tomcat's Resource Factory)
Good luck!
Re: Pooled Connections Lost After 10 Minutes (600 seconds)
Posted by Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>.
I should add this is with MySQL 5.5.34
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tomcat Random <to...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I have two instances of Tomcat 7.0.42, each on their own physical server
> (RHEL6). There's nothing in front of them, I'm using IPTABLES to route 80
> to 8080. They're clustered using the native Tomcat clustering. I'm using
> the non blocking NIO connector.
>
> Everything behaves as expected, except after 600 seconds (10 minutes) all
> the pooled connections expire. As far as I can tell the default is to not
> remove/evict pooled connections below 'minIdle' but that's what's
> happening. The only thing I can find that relates to connection pools and
> 600 seconds is in JK, but I'm not using that. Any ideas?
>
>
> Both servers have the same configuration The connection pool is configured
> in context.xml:
>
> <Resource name="jdbc/my_db"
> auth="Container"
> type="javax.sql.DataSource"
> username="tomcat_db_user"
> password="xxxxxxxxx"
> driverClassName="com.mysql.jdbc.Driver"
> url="jdbc:mysql://192.168.100.51:3306/my_db"
> maxActive="200"
> maxIdle="100"
> maxWait="20000"
> initialSize="10"
> minIdle="10"
> />
>
> And in web.xml/
>
> <!-- JNDI resource for the database -->
> <resource-ref>
> <description>My Database</description>
> <res-ref-name>jdbc/my_db</res-ref-name>
> <res-type>javax.sql.DataSource</res-type>
> <res-auth>Container</res-auth>
> </resource-ref>
>
> TIA,
> Alec
>
>
>