[Mondrian] Re: VFS issue
Matt Campbell
mkambol at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 12:23:07 EDT 2009
Will do.
On 7/20/09, Julian Hyde <jhyde at pentaho.com> wrote:
> That sounds fine, Matt. Can you log a jira request to remind us to revisit
> this.
>
> Julian
>
>
> _____
>
> From: mondrian-bounces at pentaho.org [mailto:mondrian-bounces at pentaho.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Campbell
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: Mondrian developer mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mondrian] VFS issue
>
>
> Thanks for sending the jar, Will. Same problem, though. I also tried
> grabbing the latest release of the commons httpclient. That also failed to
> help.
>
> If no one objects, how about I revert back to using the readURL method for
> http requests, leaving the existing VFS option for other file reads? When
> the commons httpclient 4.0 is released we could re-visit this.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Will Gorman <wgorman at pentaho.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> We are still using VFS in Kettle and Mondrian, Kettle 3.2.0 ended up
> building from source the latest VFS because they haven't released 2.0 of
> VFS yet. I'm not sure if that would solve these issues or not.
>
> In Pentaho's BI Platform, we access our schema files using a custom VFS
> provider so that it can access our solution repository, so we rely on
> VFS.
>
> Here is a link to Kettle's custom built VFS 2.0 jar if you want to see
> if it resolves the issues:
> http://source.pentaho.org/svnkettleroot/Kettle/trunk/libext/commons/commons-
> vfs-2.0-20090205.jar
>
> Will
>
>
> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 15:08 -0400, Matt Campbell wrote:
>> I did do a fair amount of searching when we first encountered this
>> problem and couldn't find much helpful information at all. When I get
>> a chance I'll see if there is a newer version of VFS.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde at pentaho.com>
>> wrote:
>> Has anyone done a google search for the issue you are
>> experiencing? Is there a newer version of VFS that might fix
>> the problem?
>>
>> Will, what was the other technology you used?
>>
>> I'm OK with switching technology as long as it doesn't break
>> existing apps.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> From: mondrian-bounces at pentaho.org
>> [mailto:mondrian-bounces at pentaho.org] On Behalf Of
>> Matt Campbell
>> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:16 AM
>> To: Mondrian developer mailing list
>> Subject: [Mondrian] VFS issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Awhile back we discovered that Util.readVirtualFile()
>> can throw exceptions when large numbers of requests
>> for an HTTP resource happen. Awhile back I added a
>> call to file.close() at the end of that method, which
>> had seemed to make things a bit better in testing.
>> I'm still seeing socketConnect exceptions when
>> requesting more than a few hundred http requests. In
>> practice this can happen when we have as few as 15
>> concurrent users running reports.
>>
>> There appears to be no such problem with the pre-VFS
>> method that Mondrian used for loading a URL. I
>> created a Unit test which loads 100,000 pages via the
>> old Util.readURL method. That runs fine with no
>> exceptions. The VFS method fails with fewer than 1000
>> requests.
>>
>> Would anyone object to reverting back to the old
>> Util.readURL for http requests? Alternatively, I
>> think Will Gorman said at one point that they
>> abandoned VFS for other Pentaho projects in favor of
>> some other library--would that be worth considering
>> for Mondrian?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mondrian mailing list
>> Mondrian at pentaho.org
>> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mondrian mailing list
>> Mondrian at pentaho.org
>> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mondrian mailing list
> Mondrian at pentaho.org
> http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian
>
>
>
>
More information about the Mondrian
mailing list