On 7/20/06, Nicolas Modrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > > > logs and workflow configuration are attached. (some end of testing > logging has been taken out ...) > > This is a regression test we have here that does two full activation > cycles. Given the activation time was taken out, results shows that > the two activation cycles were done in 25 seconds. > > Test shows that: > - with logs disabled : it takes 8seconds for the item to be in the > inbox for each of the activation > - with logs enabled : it takes 14seconds > > So in my scenario, and my little mind, I agree it should take > 8-14seconds the first time, but the second time should be way quicker. > > What do you think ?
Hi Nicolas, 8s is that amount constant ? Is it a 'cold start' number ? Do successive activations yield a lower number ? The classical answer would be : get more RAM. Another would be : pre-launch the activation flow and show it only when needed (keep one or two always ready), but that's not very elegant. Have you tried binding the core (bulk) of the process definition at the engine level from the library so that it's already in Expression form in the memory ? I mentioned that in one of my first replies. Best regards, -- John Mettraux -///- http://jmettraux.openwfe.org P.S. yes, xmas :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ OpenWFE - Open source WorkFlow Engine OpenWFE-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openwfe-users
