Hey Ravi,
First you need to connect to your server. If that's done, depending on
the type of connection, profiling becomes possible (AFAIK local
applications always work, but JMX based connections don't).
If profiling is possible, you should see a Profiler tab. In the
Profiler tab, on the right you can see a checkbox called "settings".
Check it.
In the first textarea, called: "Start profiling from classes", enter
the following:
javax.faces.**
org.apache.myfaces.**
com.yourcompany.**
The other settings should be ok, or maybe you need to apply some
additional filter to prevent OOME's.
When done, you can hit the Profile button and start generating load on
your webapp. Note the small button in the Profiler tab to create
snapshots. This is a useful one, because you have extra profiling
features on snapshots that aren't available on the realtime data.
Note: It might be smart to increase the max heap size in
[VISUALVM_HOME]/etc/visualvm.conf. 512MB should be enough ( -J-Xmx512m
).
I hope these steps work for you and maybe a different graph gives some
more insight...
Regards,
Jan-Kees
2010/1/12 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
> Oh I see what you are saying. We only create and populate the hashmap once,
> we never clear or delete from it. So that endless loop is not the problem.
> Also in that case the CPU wouldnt show up for org.apache.* classes.
>
> I guess you are looking for how to specify packages in VisualVM. This would
> give me another point of reference to validate my numbers.
>
> - Ravi
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Ravi,
>>
>> To your question: Can you explain little bit how lack of synchronization
>> can
>> add to CPU?
>>
>> I don't know exactly, but maybe it is possible that the internal structure
>> of a Map (e.g. HashMap) can be destroyed when there are multiple change
>> operations (put, remove, clear) at the same time, because of lack of
>> synchronization. But that's really just a guess!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>>
>> 2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Jakob,
>> >
>> > I did install VisualVM but it is not capturing org.apache.* classes or
>> > com.mycompany.* classes. I did not find a setting on how to enable
>> > capturing
>> > data for all the classes I want. Can you tell me where to specity the
>> > packages for which I want to capture CPU usage?
>> >
>> > Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jakob,
>> > >
>> > > The beans are not big. Also these tests have been performed under a
>> > single
>> > > user to measure the CPU timing. So I doubt locking/synchronization is
>> an
>> > > issue.
>> > >
>> > > I would think that if there is synchronization, then the threads could
>> be
>> > > waiting for long time, but lack of synchronization can only lead to
>> > corrupt
>> > > data not to higher CPU. Can you explain little bit how lack of
>> > > synchronization can add to CPU?
>> > >
>> > > I have never used VisualVM, I can try it sometime this week. I am
>> > assuming
>> > > it will work with Websphere 6.1
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > > Ravi
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
>> > > jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Ravi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Just a stupid question. Are your beans extremely big? Since FacesBean
>> > >> doesn't do much locking/synchronizing (none if I'm correctly), the
>> > >> only reason I can imagine it to eat CPU cycles is because of its
>> > >> size...
>> > >>
>> > >> Also, is it possible for you to do a profiling run using VisualVM?
>> > >> I've been profiling Trinidad with VisualVM myself and maybe we can
>> > >> compare numbers... Using the same tool might make it easier to
>> > >> compare...
>> > >>
>> > >> /JK
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> 2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> > I am thinking if that was the case, I would see high CPU in
>> > >> > java.util.HashMap instead of org.apache.faces.*
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If you disagree, please explain and I can try using HashTable to
>> store
>> > >> data
>> > >> > and get fresh numbers.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jakob Korherr <
>> > >> jakob.korh...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Maybe it happens when accessing the value from the Map with
>> > >> >> "#{bean.get['memid']}", because the Map is not properly
>> synchronized,
>> > >> thus
>> > >> >> its internal structure is broken and thus it is running in infinite
>> > >> loops.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Are your resources properly synchronized?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Just a guess in the blue...
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Regards,
>> > >> >> Jakob Korherr
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> 2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > Another thing, most of our EL expressions are one of the
>> following
>> > >> types
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > "#{bean.active}"
>> > >> >> > or
>> > >> >> > "#{bean.get['memid']}"
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Parsing of these expressions probably happens within
>> > >> org.apache.myfaces.*
>> > >> >> > classes. These are fairly basic EL expressions and should not be
>> > >> taking
>> > >> >> > much
>> > >> >> > time. We know, the final getter method is not taking much time.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Do you know if the page (and EL expressions) are parsed each time
>> a
>> > >> page
>> > >> >> is
>> > >> >> > rendered? If pages are parsed only once, then the parsing time
>> > should
>> > >> >> also
>> > >> >> > be almost negligible.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > - Ravi
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Ravi <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Matthias,
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > If the issue is in bean, it should show up in my analysis. Also
>> > >> >> > getProperty
>> > >> >> > > is only 40% CPU, there is additional 45% cpu consumed by rest
>> of
>> > >> the
>> > >> >> > > trinidad classes totaling 85% total CPU, all within
>> > >> >> org.apache.myfaces.*
>> > >> >> > > classes
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Ravi
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >> Ravi,
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> spoke to a guy that does performance testing/improvement for
>> > >> Oracle
>> > >> >> > >> Applications. He said that there is some % CPU in Trindad but
>> I
>> > >> would
>> > >> >> > >> not give it more them 20%. The heavy hitters is getClientId
>> > (Blake
>> > >> -
>> > >> >> > >> see dev@ thread - is doing some optimization there).
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> Now if getProperty is some el expression and expression is
>> > >> expensive
>> > >> >> > >> the problem is in expression not in Trinidad (perhaps that is
>> > the
>> > >> case
>> > >> >> > >> where you have el epression but beans behind it are not that
>> > >> good).
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> -Matthias
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Ravi Kapoor <
>> > >> ravikapoor...@gmail.com
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>> You are right, the getProperty method is only taking 2K
>> units.
>> > >> >> However
>> > >> >> > if
>> > >> >> > >>> I
>> > >> >> > >>> dig deeper, I find that most of the cumulative time is being
>> > >> spent
>> > >> >> > within
>> > >> >> > >>> Trinidad classes. The final call to java getters consumes
>> > >> negligible
>> > >> >> > >>> time.
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>> I was unable to create thread structure like you showed
>> (JProbe
>> > >> keeps
>> > >> >> > >>> getting crashed). But I took another screenshot that shows
>> > almost
>> > >> >> > similar
>> > >> >> > >>> details you are looking for. It highlights the classes that
>> are
>> > >> >> taking
>> > >> >> > >>> maximum time (cumulative time again) but as you can see, all
>> > the
>> > >> >> > classes
>> > >> >> > >>> are
>> > >> >> > >>> just trinidad classes.
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbuQsSDG0X9_ZGhraHFwejJfNGRjcGNiN2hk&hl=en
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>> Regards,
>> > >> >> > >>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
>> > >> >> > >>> jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>
>> > >> >> > >>> Hey Ravi,
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> Looking at your JProbe screenshots for the second time, I
>> > think
>> > >> >> you're
>> > >> >> > >>>> misinterpreting the graphs (but I haven't used JProbe
>> before,
>> > so
>> > >> I
>> > >> >> > >>>> might be mistaking ;-) ).
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> In your first screenshot (upper left corner) you can see the
>> > >> total
>> > >> >> > >>>> time the getProperty method takes.
>> > >> >> > >>>> This includes its self time and the time taken by its
>> > children.
>> > >> Its
>> > >> >> > >>>> self time is 2781 and the child time is 29609.
>> > >> >> > >>>> A large portion (around 85%) comes from the getLocalProperty
>> > and
>> > >> >> > >>>> ValueBinding.getValue methods.
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> However, these two methods don't do much, since they
>> delegate
>> > to
>> > >> >> other
>> > >> >> > >>>> methods to do the real work. Maybe even invoking application
>> > >> code,
>> > >> >> > >>>> like managed beans.
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> Can you provide a more detailed call tree with more info
>> about
>> > >> the
>> > >> >> > >>>> child methods that are invoked? I'm especially interested in
>> > the
>> > >> >> > >>>> methods that are called by getLocalProperty and
>> > >> >> ValueBinding.getValue
>> > >> >> > >>>> and their children. I'm not that familiar with JProbe, but
>> I'm
>> > >> sure
>> > >> >> it
>> > >> >> > >>>> supports something like a call tree
>> > >> >> > >>>> (
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://www.ej-technologies.com/products/jprofiler/images/whatsnew/exceptional_methods_calltree.png
>> > >> >> > >>>> ),
>> > >> >> > >>>> so you can see the problematic method.
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> Regards,
>> > >> >> > >>>> Jan-Kees
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> 2010/1/10 Ravi <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> Matthias, I think websphere 6.1 does not support JSF 1.2. I
>> > >> will
>> > >> >> > >>>>> doublecheck, let me know if this is incorrect. This mans I
>> > >> cannot
>> > >> >> try
>> > >> >> > >>>>> trinidad version 1.2.12
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> I will try out 1.0.11 release, but that is a minor release
>> > >> update
>> > >> >> and
>> > >> >> > I
>> > >> >> > >>>>> seriously doubt if it will fix such a performance issue.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> What other options do we have? Is there a way we can get
>> > >> somebody
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>> familiar
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> with trinidad architecture/code to look at this issue? This
>> > can
>> > >> >> even
>> > >> >> > be
>> > >> >> > >>>>> a
>> > >> >> > >>>>> paid assignment.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> Regards
>> > >> >> > >>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> Hello Ravi,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> I wonder what our last release for JSF 1.1 (1.0.11) does?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> Not sure, perhaps you may also try the JSF 1.2 version ?
>> > >> (1.2.12)
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> The JSF 1.2 version is the one that is best supported,
>> these
>> > >> days.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> Trinidad 2.0 is now in alpha stage, and I can understand
>> > that
>> > >> you
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> don't want to update on that version, now
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> -Matthias
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Ravi <
>> > >> ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Scott, we do not have CPUs available. The time trinidad
>> is
>> > >> >> > consuming
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> is
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> supposed to be doing some other work. Hence this is
>> costing
>> > >> us
>> > >> >> real
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> dollars
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> and hence our time and effort to resolve this.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> This is not initial hit of page. I always ignore the
>> first
>> > >> hit on
>> > >> >> > all
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> pages,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> I am only measuring CPU from 2nd hit onwards.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> I don't know. I'm of the camp that if the CPU time is
>> > >> >> available,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> use
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> it. That said, is this load consistant or are you just
>> > >> testing
>> > >> >> an
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> initial hit of each page.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Ravi <
>> > ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Now that I am reading your message again, I do want to
>> > >> answer
>> > >> >> > your
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> questions in detail. First I agree reflection is cheap,
>> > >> that is
>> > >> >> > why
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> reflection is not my concern. Time being spent in
>> > >> reflection is
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> almost negligible compared to time being spent in
>> > trinidad
>> > >> >> > classes.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Secondly IO and locking etc contribute to clock time
>> but
>> > >> not to
>> > >> >> > CPU
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> time. e.g. for IO, the thread may be in a wait state
>> > >> waiting
>> > >> >> for
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> data to arrive. In this case, the clock keeps ticking
>> but
>> > >> such
>> > >> >> a
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> wait does not need CPU. My numbers are specifically CPU
>> > >> time.
>> > >> >> > Which
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> means trinidad is not waiting but executing CPU
>> > >> instructions.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> This is why the user load is also irrelevant (high load
>> > >> leads
>> > >> >> to
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> adding clock time but not to CPU time). But since you
>> > >> asked, to
>> > >> >> > get
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> these numbers, I am not doing a load testing. I am
>> simply
>> > >> >> loading
>> > >> >> > 4
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> screens 4 times in order (total 16 screens).
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> Jan-Kees van Andel wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but I doubt the mailing list supports
>> > >> >> attachments.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you could provide a link to some image hosting
>> > site?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> My first thought, reflection is darn cheap, especially
>> > >> since
>> > >> >> > Java
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> 5
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> and even more since Java 6. I'm no IBM JVM specialist,
>> > but
>> > >> I
>> > >> >> > don't
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> think there are major differences with HotSpot...
>> > Compared
>> > >> >> with
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> SQL
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> queries, backend transactions, web service calls, etc.
>> > >> >> > reflective
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> method invocations really don't make a difference.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Having said that, what kind of application are you
>> > >> testing?
>> > >> >> Does
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> this
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> application have any I/O, locking or other expensive things
>> > >> that
>> > >> >> may
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> be the cause of the CPU-time imbalance?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Also, what kind of load are you simulating on your
>> > >> >> application?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Long
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> sessions with not much users? Lots of short sessions?
>> > >> >> > Hyperactive
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> users without any pauses?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> /JK
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Ps. How did you configure your profiler? Sampling or
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> tracing/instrumentation? Although I don't think it
>> makes
>> > a
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> difference
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> in this case, sampling is less accurate...
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>> 2010/1/8 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> The actual call to getter method is only using 2%
>> CPU.
>> > >> Rest
>> > >> >> 38%
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> being
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> used within trinidad classes.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am attaching two screenshots to give you more
>> > details.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> In first screenshot, you can see at the top left
>> > corner,
>> > >> >> total
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> CPU
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> units
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> taken by getProperty are 32391
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> getProperty calls
>> javax.faces.el.ValueBinding.getValue
>> > >> which
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.myfaces.el.PropertyResolverImpl.getValue
>> > which
>> > >> >> calls
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> org.apache.myfaces.el.PropertyResolverImpl.getProperty
>> > >> which
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> In second screenshot you can see that Method.invoke
>> is
>> > >> using
>> > >> >> > only
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1781 units
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> of CPU. Rest of the time is being spent within
>> trinidad
>> > >> >> > classes.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Does this help? Also the rest of trinidad using 45%
>> CPU
>> > >> usage
>> > >> >> > is
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> also highly
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> concerning.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible that the getProperty indirectly
>> invokes
>> > >> some
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> expensive
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> computation? For example, do you have lots of logic
>> > >> inside
>> > >> >> > your
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> getters?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jan-Kees
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/1/8 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the details:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Server: Websphere 6.1
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trinidad version: 1.0.7 (We cant upgrade to 2.0
>> > until
>> > >> we
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> websphere
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which will happen in due course. Even then if this
>> > >> issue
>> > >> >> has
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed, the problem may exist in 2.0 as well.)
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OS: Windows (Even though I am measuring numbers on
>> > >> windows
>> > >> >> > but
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> think this is OS specific)
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mat...@apache.org>wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Ravi,
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some more background would be good, e.g. what
>> > version
>> > >> of
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trinidad etc.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ravi Kapoor
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ravikapoor...@gmail.com
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anybody done performance tests on trinidad
>> > >> >> application.
>> > >> >> > I
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application and it appears that it is taking
>> 80-90%
>> > >> of
>> > >> >> CPU
>> > >> >> > in
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>> > >> >> > >>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>> application, thus killing performance.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We ran load tests and our CPU went to 100% usage.
>> > At
>> > >> this
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point we
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much time was being taken by each
>> class/method.
>> > >> Here
>> > >> >> > are
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting figures:
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU usage by all Trinidad + myfaces classes =
>> > 80-90%
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myfaces CPU usage (without trinidad) = 8% (which
>> > >> implies
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trinidad is
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 70-80% of CPU)
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total time taken by one method
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > (org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.bean.FacesBeanImpl.getProperty)
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40%
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anybody confirm that they have seen this
>> > >> behavior?
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or if somebody can confirm that this does not
>> > happen
>> > >> in
>> > >> >> > their
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, that should help too.
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>>>>
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
