Support Forums: Message List - Optimizing CMP EJB cache strategy in WebLogic http://www.theserverside.com Most recent forum messages en Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:40:40 -0400 Best solution: stored procedures http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:31 -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:31 -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:31 -0500 Nov 23, 2005 Xenofon Grigoriadis 0 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Still have hard time to justify why multicasting couple bytes of Object id in local segment could consume more network traffic than transferring whole object state (couple hunderd bytes usually) even to one node (usually two because of backup...]]> Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:42:53 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:42:53 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:42:53 -0500 Apr 1, 2005 Cameron Purdy 0 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 I will never be able to convince you of something that you don't want to believe.
You will be able to convince me easily by presenting logical explanations :-). I take your point about spreading load between multiple computers...]]> Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:26 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:26 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:26 -0500 Apr 1, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 1 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 I assume that you referring here to Distributed cache where each piece of data in the cache is held on only one cluster node.
Owned by one cluster node. Other nodes could also have the same data cached, but the owner...]]> Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:00:36 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:00:36 -0500 Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:00:36 -0500 Apr 1, 2005 Cameron Purdy 2 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Multicast vs. point-to-point. If you have to multi-cast the id, it uses a fixed length packet no matter what. Multi-cast across the whole cluster vs. updating just the node that manages (owns) the value within the cluster and point-to-point...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:51:41 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:51:41 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:51:41 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 3 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 For invalidation you just need to transport object identifier of some sort vs transporting whole object state so how is that possible to use less network traffic in this case?
e.g. Multicast vs. point-to-point. If you have to...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:48:12 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:48:12 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:48:12 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Cameron Purdy 4 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Coherence can avoid the staleness issue altogether, and generally does so with less network traffic than WLS uses for non-reliable invalidation
For invalidation you just need to transport object identifier of some sort vs...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:35:35 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:35:35 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:35:35 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 5 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 If WLS invalidating cache across the cluster already why would using Coherence is better option here?
Coherence can avoid the staleness issue altogether, and generally does so with less network traffic than WLS uses for...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:04:36 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:04:36 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:04:36 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Cameron Purdy 6 Why Coherence is better? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900
If WLS invalidating cache across the cluster already why would using Coherence is better option here? From what I know about Coherence (not much) is that it could/would invalidate cache transitionally (I think it's debatable if this is...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:47:01 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:47:01 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:47:01 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 7 There are no silver bullet http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900
1. App is deployed on 2 servers
2. Server 1 runs a TX that...]]> Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:06:41 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:06:41 -0500 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:06:41 -0500 Mar 31, 2005 Cameron Purdy 8 There are no silver bullet http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:52:22 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:52:22 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:52:22 -0500 Mar 30, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 9 Depends on the environment http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:02:32 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:02:32 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:02:32 -0500 Mar 30, 2005 Manuel De Jesus 0 Pessimistic locking can be faster http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 When you get to higher transaction volumes (number depend on your hardware and configuration can be as low as 50 transactions per second
How many TPS is considered high?]]> Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:13:07 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:13:07 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:13:07 -0500 Mar 30, 2005 han theman 1 Pessimistic locking can be faster http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:13:31 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:13:31 -0500 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:13:31 -0500 Mar 30, 2005 Manuel De Jesus 3 It's all about quality of service you need http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32900
I don't see no contradiction here, it's either your application need to detect concurrent updates or it doesn't. Basically you have a choice between three possible 'levels of isolation' if you want:

- No locking, no optimistic...]]> Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:49:00 -0500 Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:49:00 -0500 Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:49:00 -0500 Mar 29, 2005 Dmitri Maximovich 4