Hi Johan and Igor, well, on one hand I am using App Engine, and puts are limited to 1MB. Even with pagination and limitation of each page to 50 users (totalling 200Kb in memory for the whole page), I had to limit the pagemap size severely to ensure I am always below 1M. In Wicket 1.5 it's a lot easier to write an adaptive EvictionStrategy to control memory usage, so I can be more flexible and evict large pages more aggressively than smaller ones. Still, displaying say 500 users at once will still not be possible if each user-row can take as much as 5K.
But I am not complaining. I knew that App Engine has this limitation, and I make my own product specifications, so I can live with it. On the plus side, App Engine (due to its restrictions) scales really well, and I am not worried if some day thousands of users will use my app concurrently. But although a typical server may have many Gigs these days, you'd still be in trouble if thousands of users came slurping 40M each, that's why I do think that session size remains an important consideration. I would strongly recommend anyone not to leave optimisation till the very last, but plan ahead and spike some of the most complex screens first, since Wicket *is* different in that respect. Sorry to hear I can't optimise easily, but thanks for the quick responses Johan and Igor! Your support on this forum is truly legendary! Will try to figure out the autoAdd() soon :-) Per > but if you have it down to 200K then 50 users it is nothing... thats > 10MB on memory.... > If if both where 2X so 400K and 100 users thats still only 40MB in > memory.... Thats for a server nothing.. > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:10, Per <[hidden email] > </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3308586&i=0>> wrote: > > > > > > > So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of > research and > > profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K > or less > > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > some of > > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > LDMs, > > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > there, and no > > finals. > > > > What on earth am I doing wrong? > > > > My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should > list a > > few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an > > admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is > also a > > manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures > > (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly > > lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. > > > > Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up > for even > > just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 > Bytes > > is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a > ListItem, and > > some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for > a label > > with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the > whole > > list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small > numbers DO add > > up. > > > > My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list > items > > stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not > > maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws > away > > the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would > not work > > because I want some state in there, but you get my point. > > > > I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. > > > > Cheers, > > Per > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html > > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html?by-user=t> > > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3308586&i=1> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3308586&i=2> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3308586&i=3> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3308586&i=4> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussion below: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308586.html > > > To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0>. > > -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308621.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
