|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Xml-Rpc + Mysql.NET = Threading problemI come to you to getting help for managing multi threading and database connection. My project use Xml-Rpc to receive messages, so each call come from a different thread. Incoming calls are executing SQL on a MysqlConnection. MysqlConnection does not like when concurents calls appends. For a fast and dirty solution, I've put a Monitor() at messages arrived. But I would like to finally got a nicer solution. What do you think about the architecture I should make ? Should I create and manage a Pool of MysqlConnection and only locking when pool is fully occuped ? Do you know already made solutions for that case ? Thanks a lot for you comments and ideas, cyrille. PS: Before I put the ugly Monitor, I got some errors like : Exception: Connection must be valid and open. StackTrace: at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.CheckState() at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior behavior) at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader() Exception: Expected prepared statement marker. StackTrace: at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.NativeDriver.Prepare(String sql, String[] parmNames) at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.Prepare() what's wrong with the Monitor?
Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection on demand. In fact SqlConnection (for SqlServer), does it for you under the hood. Otherwise you could open a new connection for each incoming message.. One thing you should NOT do is use the same connection at the same time in different thread. Show quote "# Cyrille37 #" <cyrill***@free.fr> wrote in message news:upCdaPlLGHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Hello all, > > I come to you to getting help for managing multi threading and database > connection. > > My project use Xml-Rpc to receive messages, so each call come from a > different thread. > Incoming calls are executing SQL on a MysqlConnection. > MysqlConnection does not like when concurents calls appends. > > For a fast and dirty solution, I've put a Monitor() at messages arrived. > But I would like to finally got a nicer solution. > > What do you think about the architecture I should make ? > > Should I create and manage a Pool of MysqlConnection and only locking when > pool is fully occuped ? > > Do you know already made solutions for that case ? > > Thanks a lot for you comments and ideas, > cyrille. > > PS: Before I put the ugly Monitor, I got some errors like : > > Exception: Connection must be valid and open. StackTrace: > at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.CheckState() > at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior > behavior) > at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader() > > Exception: Expected prepared statement marker. StackTrace: > at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.NativeDriver.Prepare(String sql, String[] > parmNames) > at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.Prepare() Hi Lloyd,
Lloyd Dupont a écrit : > what's wrong with the Monitor? I loos multi-threading processing of incoming messages.> Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the That's Great.> pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection on > demand. > In fact SqlConnection (for SqlServer), does it for you under the hood. I've to find or write a connections pool for MySqlConnection ... Perhaps someone already done it ? > Otherwise you could open a new connection for each incoming message.. I think it will be to heavy.> One thing you should NOT do is use the same connection at the same time in Thanks for your advise. I'll be care ;o)> different thread. Thanks a lot for your councils. Regards, cyrille. Show quote > > "# Cyrille37 #" <cyrill***@free.fr> wrote in message > news:upCdaPlLGHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> Hello all, >> >> I come to you to getting help for managing multi threading and database >> connection. >> >> My project use Xml-Rpc to receive messages, so each call come from a >> different thread. >> Incoming calls are executing SQL on a MysqlConnection. >> MysqlConnection does not like when concurents calls appends. >> >> For a fast and dirty solution, I've put a Monitor() at messages arrived. >> But I would like to finally got a nicer solution. >> >> What do you think about the architecture I should make ? >> >> Should I create and manage a Pool of MysqlConnection and only locking when >> pool is fully occuped ? >> >> Do you know already made solutions for that case ? >> >> Thanks a lot for you comments and ideas, >> cyrille. >> >> PS: Before I put the ugly Monitor, I got some errors like : >> >> Exception: Connection must be valid and open. StackTrace: >> at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.CheckState() >> at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior >> behavior) >> at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.ExecuteReader() >> >> Exception: Expected prepared statement marker. StackTrace: >> at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.NativeDriver.Prepare(String sql, String[] >> parmNames) >> at MySql.Data.MySqlClient.MySqlCommand.Prepare() > > Hi Cyrille37
> > what's wrong with the Monitor? err.... could you reword this sentence?> I loos multi-threading processing of incoming messages. I don't manage to guess its meaning.... >> Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the I have something like that (as an attached document of this answer).>> pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection >> on >> demand. >> In fact SqlConnection (for SqlServer), does it for you under the hood. > > That's Great. > I've to find or write a connections pool for MySqlConnection ... > Perhaps someone already done it ? Well it was a useless peace of code as SqlConnection already use a connection pool under the hood. But if you replace all the SqlConnection stuff by MySqlConnection it will suddenly start to make sense! [attached file: DBConnectionPool.cs] Lloyd Dupont a écrit :
> Hi Cyrille37 Sorry for my bad english. I use my extra ball to try again :>>> what's wrong with the Monitor? >> I loos multi-threading processing of incoming messages. > err.... could you reword this sentence? > I don't manage to guess its meaning.... With Monitor() at messages arriving, I lose the advantage of multi-threading. Is that more readable ? ;o) > I have something like that (as an attached document of this answer). THANKS A LOT !!!> Well it was a useless peace of code as SqlConnection already use a > connection pool under the hood. > But if you replace all the SqlConnection stuff by MySqlConnection it will > suddenly start to make sense! Ok, I'll try it this afternoon. <;oP> I hope you've make a non buggy code </;oP> I give you a report after tests... Cheers, cyrille >>> I loos multi-threading processing of incoming messages. Oh.. I see... right!>> err.... could you reword this sentence? >> I don't manage to guess its meaning.... > > Sorry for my bad english. I use my extra ball to try again : > > With Monitor() at messages arriving, I lose the advantage of > multi-threading. > > Is that more readable ? > ;o) >> I have something like that (as an attached document of this answer). I hope too! ;-)>> Well it was a useless peace of code as SqlConnection already use a >> connection pool under the hood. >> But if you replace all the SqlConnection stuff by MySqlConnection it will >> suddenly start to make sense! > > THANKS A LOT !!! > > Ok, I'll try it this afternoon. > > <;oP> I hope you've make a non buggy code </;oP> > Yep, do tell me! Hopes it will work great!> I give you a report after tests... > > Cheers, Lloyd Dupont a écrit :
>>> I have something like that (as an attached document of this answer). Yeah !>>> Well it was a useless peace of code as SqlConnection already use a >>> connection pool under the hood. >>> But if you replace all the SqlConnection stuff by MySqlConnection it will >>> suddenly start to make sense! Your code works fine. I've just made one change that do not close connections when freeing them, to avoid the open/close overload. Connections will be closed by MySqlConnection.Dispose() in MySql.Data. Another stuff appends to me. While reading the source code of MySql.Data to be shure connections will be closed, I found that there is already a Connection Pool in the connector... But I did not know because the documentation does not talk about... I don't know if I still need to use the DBConnectionPool ... By the way, it was fun to test your code ;oP Cyrille. # Cyrille37 # a écrit :
Show quote > Lloyd Dupont a écrit : I did some stress tests with the DBConnectionPool and without it.>>>> I have something like that (as an attached document of this answer). >>>> Well it was a useless peace of code as SqlConnection already use a >>>> connection pool under the hood. >>>> But if you replace all the SqlConnection stuff by MySqlConnection it >>>> will suddenly start to make sense! > > Yeah ! > Your code works fine. > > I've just made one change that do not close connections when freeing > them, to avoid the open/close overload. > Connections will be closed by MySqlConnection.Dispose() in MySql.Data. > > Another stuff appends to me. While reading the source code of MySql.Data > to be shure connections will be closed, I found that there is already a > Connection Pool in the connector... But I did not know because the > documentation does not talk about... > > I don't know if I still need to use the DBConnectionPool ... > By the way, it was fun to test your code ;oP Result are very very faster with DBConnectionPool (my version without Closing). Cyrille >> I don't know if I still need to use the DBConnectionPool ... Good!>> By the way, it was fun to test your code ;oP > > I did some stress tests with the DBConnectionPool and without it. > > Result are very very faster with DBConnectionPool (my version without > Closing). I guess you'll keep using it! ;-) Lloyd Dupont a écrit :
> what's wrong with the Monitor? What about the Prepared Statements ?> > Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the > pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection on > demand. I think they are associated with a SqlConnection. So If I create some prepared statements they will stay associated with the connection but I could not use them if Pool give me another connection ... I'm not clear because I could not imagine how Prepared Statement will be managed when using a ConnectionPool. What do you think about that ?? thanks cyrille. I would say, don't reuse them.
Create them on demand each time. Not only it will make easier to maintain/use/understand, but I dont believe there is that much to gain by trying to reuse them.... "# Cyrille37 #" <cyrill***@free.fr> wrote in message Lloyd Dupont a écrit :news:%238666SxLGHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > what's wrong with the Monitor? What about the Prepared Statements ?> > Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the > pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection on > demand. I think they are associated with a SqlConnection. So If I create some prepared statements they will stay associated with the connection but I could not use them if Pool give me another connection ... I'm not clear because I could not imagine how Prepared Statement will be managed when using a ConnectionPool. What do you think about that ?? thanks cyrille. Lloyd Dupont a écrit :
> I would say, don't reuse them. Hello Lloyd,> Create them on demand each time. > Not only it will make easier to maintain/use/understand, but I dont believe > there is that much to gain by trying to reuse them.... I think to reuse prepared statements for queries that are used very often. In my project, there are about 50 to 100 clients and they are asking many times for the same data. For logged in, to get list of connected users, to get some layout information and so on. I think prepared statements are stored by the sql engine to be ready to replay them. But they are associated with a connection... So, perhaps for such needs I've to use a special connection ... By the way, it's only a performance problem. Thanks for the talk and for your code. May I put your code on my wiki, with your name of course ? cyrille. Show quote > > "# Cyrille37 #" <cyrill***@free.fr> wrote in message > news:%238666SxLGHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Lloyd Dupont a écrit : >> what's wrong with the Monitor? >> >> Anyway it's very typical and advised to have a connection pool which (the >> pool) as a properly synchronized access and return a private connection on >> demand. > > What about the Prepared Statements ? > > I think they are associated with a SqlConnection. > So If I create some prepared statements they will stay associated with the > connection but I could not use them if Pool give me another connection ... > > I'm not clear because I could not imagine how Prepared Statement will be > managed > when using a ConnectionPool. > > What do you think about that ?? > > thanks > cyrille. > > > Thanks for the talk and for your code. You're more than welcome ;-)> May I put your code on my wiki, with your name of course ?  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics