呉傑 wrote:
> Hello Mahesh,
> CC) Siraj,
>
> Thanks a lot for your minutely reply.
> Sth comment inline, maybe the case become more and
> more perplexing.
>
>> To get the correct monitoring statistics, the monitoring level must
>> be set to at least low. Please check if this
> > has been done.
>
> I have set "LOW" for monitoring level of EJB Container.
>
>> 1. Whats the timeout value. If it is zero, it will not be
> > removed at all. Also, the timeout value is just a hint.
> > The timeout that is set is also the frequency at which the
> > reaper thread attempts to cleanup the entries. So wait for
> > one more cycle and if it is still not removed, let us know.
>
> I agree with your explanation, and I checked my setting again.
> (1 for "Max Cache Size", 2 for "Cache Resize Quantity", 30sec
> for "Removal Timeout", default value for "Removal Selection
> Policy" and 30sec for "Cahce Idle Timeout"). and the problem
> was reproduced.
>
>> 2. It should be removed. I'll check if this is reproducible.
>
> I reproduce it again.
> Not merely this but also when removal-timeout is less than or
> equal to cache-idle-timeout, the passivate function still take
> effect.
> #My comprehensiveness is that the passivate function should
> lose effectiveness.
>
>> 3. It should be. Again please check if monitoring level is
> > not "OFF".
>
> I set HIGH for monitoring level. and the RemoveCount of SFSB
> was not increased when calling an @Remove method
>
>> 4. Stateful session beans are never pooled and hence new
> > beans are created.
>
> Sorry for inexplicit statement. The scene I described just is
> that Stateless Session bean and Entities in the pool. If one
> module contains several SLSBs(for assumption Bean1, Bean2,
> Bean3), When one request only for Bean1 comes and there is no
> available idle instance, EJB Container will increase new
> instance for all the beans(Bean1, Bean2, Bean3) according
> Resize Quantity.
> #I think EJB Container just need to inrease instance according
> the request and Resize Quantity.(e.g. the case described above
> I think EJB Container need to increase instance for Bean1 only).
> This proposal maybe bring down appserver's load and enhance
> appserver's availability.
>
>> 5. Maybe an admin gui issue? Siraj could you take a look at this?
I'll have to let someone from admin gui team respond to this. Have you
tried from CLI?
Thanks
>
> To) Siraj
> I look forward to your help on this issue with appreciate ahead.
>
> Thanks.
> Wu
>