Hi,
My comment inline.
On 2011-8-9, at 下午7:51, Lorenzo Bolzani wrote:
2011/8/9 Freeman Fang <[email protected]>
Hi,
As you're using Servicemix 3.3.2, for better performance of
concurrent
client, you need add synchronous="false" to cxf bc consumer
configuration.
Also you need configure a big thread pool for the cxf bc and cxf se
component, take a look at [1] to get more details.
Hi Freeman,
thanks for your reply. The synchronous attribute helped a lot but
did not
solved the problem completely.
Now I can run the application with 100 client threads and it does
not freeze
using 16 as corePoolThreadSize, 256 as maximumPoolSize and 1024 as
queueSize
(global settings).
But if I set the corePoolSize to 4, maximum to 256 and queueSize to
256 then
the application freezes almost immediately. From the jconsole I can
see that
no new threads are created beyond the initial four.
Considering the rules from the thread-pools page I suppose the queue
is not
full so no new threads are created. But all the cxf-se threads are
stopped
here
java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
org
.apache
.servicemix
.jbi
.messaging
.DeliveryChannelImpl.waitForExchange(DeliveryChannelImpl.java:721)
org
.apache
.servicemix
.jbi.messaging.DeliveryChannelImpl.sendSync(DeliveryChannelImpl.java:
482)
[...]
org.apache.servicemix.cxfse.CxfSeEndpoint.process(CxfSeEndpoint.java:
452)
and everything cxf-se related stops.
Looks like there is a minimum number of threads required for a
process to
complete. For example 8 is enough, but 4 is not (my case). Is this
correct?
Yeah, if corePoolSize is too small but queueSize is large, then
because all available threads are used up(in wait) and no more new
thread could be created as the queueSize isn't full, so no new thread
can notify the wait thread, so no more thread could be released, so
deadlock happen.
Considering that the number of threads does not increase how can I
be sure
that I have enough for a specific complex BPEL process? Should I set
the
queue lenght very low to force new threads to be created immediately
(I
tryed, this works but looks like a bad hack)? Should I set the
corePoolSize
very high and do a lot of testing?
You need fine-tune the threadpool configuration parameter per your
business scale.
Set queueSize=-1 can avoid the deadlock situation in this case.
Freeman
For my specific application this is a big issue. I found almost
nothing
about it with google. Am I doing something wrong? For example calling
sendSync is bad practice? Should I avoid it at all costs?
Thanks, bye
Lorenzo
---------------------------------------------
Freeman Fang
FuseSource
Email:[email protected]
Web: fusesource.com
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
