transactionTimeout property value question for XADisk 1.2.2

[Mahuvakar, Vikram]

Hi Nitin,

 

We are using XADisk version 1.2.2 with JBoss-6.0.0.Final EJB server. We have deployed XADisk.rar in JBoss-6.0.0.Final/server/default/deploy directory on a  Linux  server.

 

We do some file movement operation using XADisk and have integrated this with JDBC transaction for service call from Web client. The ra.xml has property

<config-property>

            <config-property-name>transactionTimeout</config-property-name>

            <config-property-type>java.lang.Integer</config-property-type>

            <config-property-value>60</config-property-value>

        </config-property>

 

We have noticed when our main service call JBoss transaction take more than 60 seconds than we get a Jboss transaction rollback.

I wanted to know if we can increase the value to 120 seconds or 180 seconds as shown below

 

<config-property>

            <config-property-name>transactionTimeout</config-property-name>

            <config-property-type>java.lang.Integer</config-property-type>

            <config-property-value>180 or 120</config-property-value>

        </config-property>

 

Will this create any other issue with XADisk operations? I wanted your suggestion as we have some of service call transactions from web client is taking 93 or 131 seconds for JBoss transaction.

 

Can you please help us? Also if you have any better suggestion?

 

Thanks,

 

Vikram

[Nitin Verma]

Hi Vikram,

xadisk uses this timeout property to rollback any transactions open for more than the globally-configured/(dynamically overridden for specific transaction) value. If your application requires to keep the transactions open for longer, you can change this value in ra.xml. Please let me know if you find any issues.

Thanks,
Nitin

[Mahuvakar, Vikram]

Hi Nitin,

 

Thanks for your replay. I our EJB transaction is 300 seconds max.  I am thinking our changing the ra.xml to 180 seconds as I have noticed last one took 131 seconds and was rolled backed.  Is 180 seconds would be too long? Should I keep it as 120 seconds only?

 

Thanks,

 

Vikram

[Nitin Verma]

Hi Vikram,

If your transaction is taking this time (may be because of misc activities done while the transaction is ongoing), you will have to increase the timeout. Or, you can try to reduce the time taken inside the transaction.

Thanks,
Nitin

[Mahuvakar, Vikram]

Hi Nitin,

 

Thanks for the information. I will try and increase the time and test it. I will let you know if I have any other issues.

 

Thanks,

 

Vikram

 

From: Nitin Verma [mailto:emailt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:15 PM
To: XADisk
Cc: emailt...@gmail.com; Mahuvakar, Vikram
Subject: Re: transactionTimeout property value question for XADisk 1.2.2

 

Hi Vikram,

[Mahuvakar, Vikram]

Hi Nitin,

 

Thanks for the information. One last question. Can we also increase       <max-pool-size>10</max-pool-size> in XADisk-ds.xml to same as what we have for oracle-ds.xml?

As we have in oracle-ds.xml for JBoss server following values in <xa-datasource>

 

<min-pool-size>10</min-pool-size>

    <max-pool-size>100</max-pool-size>

Do you think that will help improve performance?

 

Thanks,

 

Vikram

 

From: Nitin Verma [mailto:emailt...@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:15 PM
To: XADisk

Cc: emailt...@gmail.com; Mahuvakar, Vikram
Subject: Re: transactionTimeout property value question for XADisk 1.2.2

 

Hi Vikram,

[Nitin Verma]

Hi Vikram,

max-pool-size is the maximum number of connections allowed in the pool (https://docs.jboss.org/jbossas/docs/Server_Configuration_Guide/4/html/Connectors_on_JBoss-Configuring_JDBC_DataSources.html).

As of current implementation, xadisk remote-connection-factory resets its physical connection during every clean-up (XADiskRemoteManagedConnection/cleanup()); this clean-up is called by container before putting the connection to pool after application's use (https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/resource/spi/ManagedConnection.html#cleanup--).

So effectively pooling the remote xadisk connections does not add any benefit. So, this max-pool-size property too should not affect xadisk related performance.

Thanks,
Nitin