Wrox Programmer Forums

Need to download code?

View our list of code downloads.

Go Back   Wrox Programmer Forums > Java > Java and JDK > J2EE
Password Reminder
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read
J2EE General J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) discussions. Questions not specific to EE will be redirected elsewhere.
Welcome to the p2p.wrox.com Forums.

You are currently viewing the J2EE section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of tens of thousands of software programmers and website developers including Wrox book authors and readers. As a guest, you can read any forum posting. By joining today you can post your own programming questions, respond to other developers’ questions, and eliminate the ads that are displayed to guests. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free .
DRM-free e-books 300x50
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2003, 08:10 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: , , Singapore.
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Distributed vs Co-located DB performance

Hi all,

I am busy reading Rod Johnson's excellent book "Expert one-on-one J2EE Design and Development". The most helpful book I have read in years.

In several places in his books he refers to the benefits of co-locating the web tier and biz tier within the same JVM and the on the same phsycial machine. One then uses clustering to handle scalability.

My question is how about the database. This point seems to be glossed over in the book. Most enterprise systems I have dealt with have the database on a seperate physical machine to the business and/or web machines. This is for the purposes of backup, security and shared access.

However, this obviously neccessitates remote access to the DB machine for every DB interaction from any business object. Doesn't this kill performance in the same way as making your EJBs distributed does (as opposed to co-locating them). Or does connection pooling and the lower access overheads (when compared to RMI) make this performance loss negligble?

Any input on this topic would be most helpful as my company is in the process of finalising it's hosting, machine and design requirements for its major application.

Many thanks in advance.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old July 23rd, 2003, 05:31 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: , , .
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Bingo, thats where the ConnectionPool is taking in place. Althought the DB would be in a separate server, yet the connection pool is connection via a JNDI lookup, but the connection pool can be sitting either on the main server and clustered through vertically as well.

Good luck!


Neo Gigs
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
excel file cant be located RoniR ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 Professional 1 February 19th, 2007 08:05 AM
Has anyone located all of the source code yet? gary167 BOOK: Access 2003 VBA Programmer's Reference 0 November 10th, 2006 08:21 PM
What object is streamwriter located under? kenn_rosie ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 Basics 0 February 21st, 2006 08:10 PM
Major performance loss on split DB roniestein Access 67 October 22nd, 2004 11:55 AM
Distributed vs Co-located DB performance wsalamonsen BOOK: Expert One-on-One J2EE Design and Development 2 October 22nd, 2003 05:20 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.