isis-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeroen van der Wal <jer...@stromboli.it>
Subject Re: Concurrency
Date Tue, 31 May 2016 09:13:37 GMT
I agree with Martin that profiling is the only way to go. To illustrate: we
recently made some code 8 times faster by a few simple code changes on
bottlenecks revealed by JProfiler. And those were in places that we've
never guessed.

On 31 May 2016 at 08:39, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> To find out where is the problem you will have to use a profiler like
> JProfiler, Yourkit, JVisualVM, etc.
> Even some thread dumps would help to see what is going on.
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 9:00 PM, César Camilo Lugo Marcos <
> cesar.lugo@sisorg.com.mx> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to add to this topic the following:
> >
> > Most of the transactions we are testing in these stress tests are not
> > bound in ACTIONS, but just plain reads or default transactions using
> > Apache ISIS wicket viewer defaults. I don't see any place where I could
> > define semantics for default read or write transactions not bound into
> > ACTION methods. Is there any place I should look into for that?
> >
> > Cesar.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 18:45 +0000, César Camilo Lugo Marcos wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We have sarted performing some stress tests to our Apache ISIS
> > > application. We have found this behavior:
> > >
> > > - If we run 1 concurrent user, average response times to the main
> object
> > > reads through the wicket viewer are from 1 to 1.5 seconds.
> > > - If we run 2 concurrent users, same transactions go to average
> response
> > > times up to 16 to 27 seconds.
> > > - If we run 10 concurrent users, the transactions start to slow down
> > > significantly until the app server freezes and we have to restart it.
> > >
> > > As you can see, this is a very significant increase in response time
> for
> > > such a slight change in user load (from 1 user to 2 users). So we are
> > > guessing we should look into the concurrency control.
> > >
> > > In the documentation I have found that the only way to influence the
> way
> > > Apache ISIS manages transactions and concurrency checking is by using
> > > the semantics configuration of the ACTION annotation.
> > >
> > > semantics=SAFE_AND_REQUEST_CACHEABLE
> > > semantics=SAFE
> > > semantics=IDEMPOTENT
> > > semantics=IDEMPOTENT_ARE_YOU_SURE
> > > semantics=NON_IDEMPOTENT
> > > semantics=NON_IDEMPOTENT_ARE_YOU_SURE
> > >
> > > I just wanted to confirm if this is the place to look into, or are
> there
> > > any other places where we should be looking into too, to solve the
> > > performance issue.
> > >
> > > Cesar.
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message