geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Santosh Koti" <>
Subject Some observations..!!
Date Mon, 22 May 2006 14:45:30 GMT


Great effort!!

  JOPS ~ 1 (for) Geronimo looks very less from ur report.

  Does SPecjAppServer2004 might include some ejb (entity) transactions?

  Do u have any numbers in a itemized way (more refined than JOPS

  Pls post them, that would be better [ atleast for me :-) ]

  PS:   ( I have not done SpecjAppServer benchmarking )

I am also testing Geronimo for our sample app. So far the results are
quite impressive for pure data fetches , but those involving
transactions are not very appreciable. (I am not sure; is it to do with
any config, though I have tuned all my infrastructure components)

   Roughly speaking (in short):
           My readings (After some bit of tuning) for my sample app:
                           My use case was combination of some txns &
some  				   pure data fetches.

                       Run Duration: half-an -hour (will increase later)

                       Users: 225
                            1. Pages Per Sec (Avg): 182.518
                            2. Response Time  (Avg): 0.123 sec
                            3. App Server-CPU% utilisation: 15.66
                            4. Web Server-CPU%: 5.461
                            5. DB Server -CPU%: 10.088                 

            At a load of 250 it was breaking down , I increased the heap
size to 1.5 GB, but the DB process exceeded beyond the (500-configurd ,
by DBA) mark.

EJB transactions commit take too much time, & in doing so keeps the db
threads alive for undesired amount of time, leading to an undesired
response time


"Don't talk about yourself; it will be done when you leave. "

-----Original Message-----
From: Zakharov, Vasily M []
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: SPECjAppServer2004 up!


Sorry for the delay, I missed your question.

Sure, all the DDs and the deployment process description are available

In fact, not everything is smooth now. The SPECjAppServer2004 Driver
starts and completes normally, however the run logs show that only
Orders Transactions work normally, while Work Order, PO and POLine
Transactions don't in fact work. I guess some configuration issues still
exist, while not clearly visible. I can also post the output directory
logs or the whole FDA if it's useful.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hogstrom []
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: SPECjAppServer2004 up!

Awesome news :)

Can you share the DDs ?

Zakharov, Vasily M wrote:
> Hi, all,
> Finally, after a long struggle, SPECjAppServer2004 benchmark is up on
> Geronimo 1.0!
> (on my notebook :)
> My thanks to Matt Hogstrom, David Jencks, Jacek Laskowski and Aaron
> Mulder for their help with various problems and issues that occured in
> this work.
> Now I'm working on updating the running manual and on creating a
> reasonable hardware configuration to measure the actual performance
> effectively.
> Vasily Zakharov
> Intel Middleware Products Division

**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of
the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail
and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this
e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail
may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk,
but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail.
You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys
reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this
e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys
e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***

View raw message