Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Huge problem with COM+ performace? PART TWO

Re: Huge problem with COM+ performace? PART TWO

From: Adam Boczek <adam.boczek_at_NO_SPAM_gft-solutions.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:06:09 +0100
Message-ID: <1004598368.231462@tux2.ham.acs-gmbh.de>


Yes, everything is set properly...

Greets,
Adam



Adam Boczek
IT Consultant
GFT Solutions GmbH
adam.boczek_at_gft-solutions.de

"Klaus H. Probst" <kprobst_at_v b b o x.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ujHtlbkYBHA.1716_at_tkmsftngp05...
> Adam,
>
> I don't know if someone has brought this up before but are you setting the
> DLL(s) Unattended Execution and Retained In Memory properties? There's a
> problem with the VB runtime and COM+ that is solved this way. By the looks
> of your description maybe that could be the problem...
>
>
> --
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Klaus H. Probst, MVP
> http://www.vbbox.com/
>
>
> Please post/reply to the newsgroup(s)
>
>
> "Adam Boczek" <adam.boczek_at_NO_SPAM_gft-solutions.de> wrote in message
> news:1004553339.429437_at_tux2.ham.acs-gmbh.de...
> > First of all I'd like to thanx all of you for answers!
> >
> > I've done some tests today and I'd like to show you results and
problems.
> >
> > All my VB components are correct configured properly (threadings models,
> > type of execution etc.). I have one class thas is responsible for all
> > connection to the database. It also independet dll.
> >
> > All my clients write now messages into event log.
> >
> > Problem:
> > When I start one client and than start long-lasting operation I can
start
> > second client, but it waits until the first client ends its process.
Looks
> > like database locks but it is not.
> >
> > Suddenly I've found in log event, that my second client can't initialize
> > com+ object (stops when I call "set a = new MyDll.Function"). When the
> first
> > client realises or creates new object than some resouces are free and
> second
> > client goes on, but stops when it once again needs new object. So it
looks
> > like problems by resource pooling in com+.
> >
> > And now the hammer! All runs without problems when... I split my com+
> > aplication into two aplications! One has only my "db" classes, second
the
> > rest of dlls. But where is the explanation? Two dllhost.exe mean tousand
> of
> > out-process calls (almost all my dll uses "basis-dll") and that degrees
> > preformance. And this configuration causes also problems with
transaction
> in
> > stored precedures of Oracle8i.
> >
> > Thanx for any help. I have 5 days to lose the problem...
> >
> > Greets,
> > Adam
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Adam Boczek
> > IT Consultant
> > GFT Solutions GmbH
> > adam.boczek_at_gft-solutions.de
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > "Adam Boczek" <adam.boczek_at_NO_SPAM_gft-solutions.de> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag
> > news:1004438383.943613_at_tux2.ham.acs-gmbh.de...
> > > I have huge problem :-|. I've written software which uses COM+ as
> > midletier
> > > and Oracle8i as datatier. All business components are VB dlls. All
> clients
> > > are VB exes. Everything seems to be ok (transactions etc.). But when I
> > start
> > > long-lastig process (for example accounting for 300.000 clients) all
> other
> > > processes are locked (or very, very slow). I can NOT connect from
client
> > to
> > > my business components in COM+ (I receive no errors, only information
> that
> > > process is pending) . Hardware is ok (2-Procesor server Compaq with
1,2
> GB
> > > RAM etc.), database parameters also (I can connect to database without
> > COM+
> > > and run without problems any query), network 100MB/s and hi-end
> switches.
> > > I've tried different component configurations (all dll in one package
or
> > in
> > > groups) but without success.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Win2k Srv SP2, Oracle8i (8.1.7.2), VB6 SP5, ADO 2.6 SP1, all clients
> Win2k
> > > Pro SP2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:06:09 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US