Return-Path: 
 <users-return-60716-apmail-myfaces-users-archive=myfaces.apache.org@myfaces.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF11A10790
	for <apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Sat,  7 Sep 2013 18:53:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 90523 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2013 18:53:47 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90084 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2013 18:53:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.myfaces.apache.org>
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90069 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2013 18:53:40 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:53:40 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,PLING_QUERY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ertiop93@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.82.182] (HELO mail-we0-f182.google.com) (74.125.82.182)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:53:35 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q59so3018302wes.13
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=2h3jBmG2pgIlrDrHMrY6M6pbjGr+yULebYuwiPGw+Rg=;
        b=xNZQNqXT4ufetZ5YXav5tjc4VytSQKWRDV4VjlOD+4vYOS/innZj7WD3sYmVHu/Qpw
         7PyDM6GlgyCNU6Tzxjy7K9PjgrLevje7JBJ+B3GGouGPs/ZxSencDxrxuvX8yXSkB5j+
         MdLvUu73UqevCQAPDydr+0P5Y7oDI8umVq690NbV9abIp9kE6HxmlC/Sce0hCJeQW9bB
         Zeid1g4qFJEpLKzYIcjo6TiB0RAbD8fcocE2KNifoeqt1YCq2ddCNvLNheteQDdv0wSg
         wHVuiN6wXHp7ozi2ZXxQG8NGqokFFZ7ZrdHxP51IGk6dJQNVwbPLX1t+X9cWCyLnadLM
         MuSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.38.98 with SMTP id f2mr2851414wik.39.1378579993805; Sat,
 07 Sep 2013 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.52.194 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <-8062473269566367940@unknownmsgid>
References: 
 <CADwHx2q48vuAiugd63cuyiBZDhynxehV8wtOdmJcMmTb-DDx+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<-8062473269566367940@unknownmsgid>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 00:23:13 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CADwHx2ovuRVXQR7BmEvrz7dvryxvMuWZqtpwb_M9zXr54rBMUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FacesServlet.service() method eating too much time while serving
 requests (high self-time) ?!
From: Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com>
To: MyFaces Discussion <users@myfaces.apache.org>, dev@myfaces.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f643378d34f0904e5cfaab9
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--e89a8f643378d34f0904e5cfaab9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Anton Gavazuk <antongavazuk@gmail.com>
 wrote:
>
>
> So this method is actually wrapping up all underlying processing: jsf
> actions, business services, interaction with db - thus its time is always
> the biggest
>

Nope the *self time* of this method that I am talking about, refers to
 just the time spent inside this method, excluding time taken for
subsequent method calls from within it. So it *does not* cover the time for
database interaction or any business logic processing & it eats up 75% time
while serving requests which IMHO is way too much & looks unacceptable for
any public facing web application.

--e89a8f643378d34f0904e5cfaab9--