Hi,
I've performed the test on the new version from the trunk. I get:
With the CMS Portlet: 15 p/s
Without the CMS Portlet: 31p/s
Yesterday I was trying to find out where in your code there were the SQL
queries logued by hibernate. I was suspecting that they were the bottleneck but
the source
walbar wrote :
| I've performed the test on the new version from the trunk. I get:
|
| With the CMS Portlet: 15 p/s
| Without the CMS Portlet: 31p/s
|
Which version?
walbar wrote :
| I guess that another possible bottleneck are the JTA transactions that are
continuously being
Those tests were performed on the 2.6 trunk version Julien mentioned above.
In order to use JBoss Portal in my project I need better performance. I'm
trying to guess how much it could give by tuning, caching, etc. From 0.96 p/s
(in my first post) to 15p/s on version 2.6 there is a great improve
Anyway we don't need JTA in production since most of our portlets' logic would
be read-only. We would use JTA during Staging, and in that phase we are not
interested in performance yet.
So, I'm still interested in knowing where I could remove JTA transactions.
Would you help me?
Thanks a
removing JTA will not give you an extra performance boost as during the commit
phase, every datasource (actually only the PortalDS) will say nothing has been
changed and the TM will optmize. So the overhead is very minimal.
Yesterday I improved the way that portal objects and instances are
Hi,
I've performed the test on the new version from the trunk. I get:
With the CMS Portlet: 15 p/s
Without the CMS Portlet: 31p/s
Yesterday I was trying to find out where in your code there were the SQL
queries logued by hibernate. I was suspecting that they were the bottleneck but
the source
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your answer. Following your line of thinking I tested 2.4 home
page without the CMS Portlet and got 20 p/s. Do you think that 2.6 will give us
this number of pages once it is fine-tuned? May we expect a better number after
the changes to the tables you mention?
Regards,
Sohil found two things in the 2.6 codebase and they've been fixed (and
backported to 2.4):
1. CMS regexp I added for removal of everything except *. The regexp was being
run every time, over the cached object, regardless if the tag existed.
2. Portal ResourceBundle loader seemed to be
I have added a couple of improvements in 2.6 trunk, would you mind to test it
and see what you get ?
walbar wrote : Hi,
|
| Thanks a lot for your answer. Following your line of thinking I tested 2.4
home page without the CMS Portlet and got 20 p/s. Do you think that 2.6 will
give us this
Hi,
I've performed the test without the CMS Portlet and I've got similar results
(13 pages/sec.).
Besides, I have activated a higher level of logging and found that for
rendering '/portal' page it makes extensive use of hibernate, many times going
beyond the cache and making actual queries to
walbar wrote : Besides, I have activated a higher level of logging and found
that for rendering '/portal' page it makes extensive use of hibernate, many
times going beyond the cache and making actual queries to the database (even
without the CMS portlet).
|
Depends where in the DB its
Thanks a lot for your answers, we will be looking forward to see Sohil news :-)
Anyway, let's assume we don't care about the CMS Portlet. What about Portal
Core performance? Shall we assume that it is difficult to get more than 13 p/s
with this configuration? Shall we assume that the database
After talking with Julien, he is telling me that 2.6DR has not been fine-tuned.
Some tables will likely change... WSRP and CMS security come to mind, so he
chose to left the Hibernate level in a development state. I would expect our
Beta (not this coming Alpha) to be fine-tuned.
View the
Hi Roy,
Thanks a lot for your quick answer.
We have performed the tests deploying JBoss 2.4.0, and 2.6.0-DR1 on JBoss AS
4.0.5.GA.
What we are wondering is why 2.6 is slower than 2.4. Maybe because of its
development state?
I'll perform a new test hitting a page without the CMS Portlet as
Well, keep in mind that 2.6 was pushed out by the portal team developers
earlier than planned, because we wanted feedback on the direction we were
taking wrt usability.
As for the CMS, Sohil will be profiling it this week and see where the problem
is. I'll tell him to post here if he finds
Its actually not the portal-core. Running the same test app on my devlaptop
(WinXPSP2, 2GB, 2.13GHz), I ended up with similar results for 2.6DR. I then
went in to the admin screen and removed the CMS Portlet, and here is what I
have:
| Overview
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
