I'm in IRC now. The non-business sensitive test case hasn't been maintained. At this stage it might be pretty difficult to create one that doesn't have proprietary information and still functions anywhere the same. We've got nearly 200 rules and 20 different kinds of facts. I wonder if a simple obfuscation would be sufficient?
I did give 5.0M1 a try last week. Several of our rules wouldn't compile. I tried for a day or so to fix things, but then gave up. We know it is non-optimal, but we have a few rules with "if" statements in the RHS and those simply wouldn't compile in 5.0. I'd like to refactor those out to at least an "eval" in the LHS, but ideally I'd like to precompute the statement and store the result in a new fact so that it could be indexed. Is 5.0 better for multi-threaded access as we discussed before? We've had to wrap all access to working memory in synchronized blocks when using 4.x. That's a pretty big hammer, but it works. Otherwise fact insertions/retracts, firing of rules and queries end up getting run at the same time by different threads and working memory ends up completely unusable. Maybe I'll take another stab at fixing those rules and give 5.0 another go. Any target on a 5.0 release date? We're looking to go live in production in about 1 month. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:39 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling? Fenderbosch, Eric wrote: > We are having a similar problem, although our fact count is much higher. > Performance seems pretty good and consistent until about 400k facts, > then performance degrades significantly. Part of the degradation is > from bigger and more frequent GCs, but not all of it. > If you have multi-cpu there is a JVM command you can set a dedicated cpu for GC, that helps somewhat. > Time to load first 100k facts: ~1 min > Time to load next 100k facts: ~1 min > Time to load next 100k facts: ~2 min > Time to load next 100k facts: ~4 min > > This trend continues, going from 600k to 700k facts takes over 7 > minutes. We're running 4.0.7 on a 4 CPU box with 12 GB, 64 bit RH > Linux and 64 bit JRockit 5. We've allocated a 9 GB heap for the VM > using large pages, so no memory paging is happening. JRockit is > started w/ the -XXagressive parameter, which enables large pages and > the more efficient hash function in HashMap which was introduced in > Java5 update 8. > Other than the CPU thing, Drools won't take advantage of multipe cpus at the moment. > http://e-docs.bea.com/jrockit/jrdocs/refman/optionXX.html > > The end state is over 700k facts, with the possibility of nearly 1M > facts in production. After end state is reached and we issue a few GC > requests, if looks like our memory per fact is almost 9k, which seems > quite high as most of the facts are very simple. Could that be due to > our liberal use of insertLogical and TMS? > It could be related to this, especially if you create a long chain of logical relationships. > We've tried performing a "commit" every few hundred fact insertions by > issuing a fireAllRules periodically, and that seems to have helped > marginally. > > I tried disabling shadow proxies and a few of our ~390 test cases fail > and one loops indefinitely. I'm pretty sure we could fix those, but > don't want to bother if this isn't a realistic solution. > > Any thoughts? > Have you tried this on Drools 5.0? It 'doesn't need shadow proxies and implements a new Rete algorithm that is faster for retracts. You can get a nightly build from here, I'd be interested to find out how broken 5.0 is :) https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/ trunk/target/ We still have more performnace work to do, the items are known, just a matter of time, not all will make 5.0 though. but the main items include: 1) bytecode compiled Rete network, instead of interpreted nodes. I'm hoping this will have a large impact, reducing GC and general indirection and recursive method call frames. 2) "true modify", instead of a retract+assert, will also remove the need for activation normalistaion that we do for TMS and the agenda event model. 3) range indexing (initially literals, but would like to explore variables too). Steve, before he left fedex, was creating a simulator for this use case, but removing anything business sensitive. So that we could use it publicly as a benchmark and to help us tune the engine. Are you still working on this? Steve use to chat to us on irc, can I ask you to pop on for a chat? http://labs.jboss.org/drools/irc.html mark > Thanks > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kneusel > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:47 PM > To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org > Subject: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling? > > > I am testing Drools 4 for our application and while sequential mode is > very fast I get very poor scaling when I increase the number of facts > for stateful or stateless sessions. I want to make sure I'm not doing > something foolish before deciding on whether or not to use Drools > because from what I am reading online it should be fast with the > number of facts I have. > > The scenario: I have 1000 rules in a DRL file. They are all of the > form: > > rule rule0000 > when > Data(type == 0, value> 0.185264); > Data(type == 3, value < 0.198202); > then > insert(new AlarmRaised(0)); > warnings.setAlarm(0, true); > end > > where the ranges checked on the values and the types are randomly > generated. Then, I create a Stateful session and run in a loop timing > how long it takes the engine to fire all rules as the number of > inserted facts increases: > > // Run > for(j=0; j < 100; j+=5) { > > if (j==0) { > nfacts = 1; > } else { > nfacts = j; > } > > System.out.println(nfacts + ":"); > > // Get a working memory > StatefulSession wm = ruleBase.newStatefulSession(); > > // Global - output > warnings = new Alarm(); > wm.setGlobal("warnings", warnings); > > // Add facts > st = (new Date()).getTime(); > for(i=0; i < nfacts; i++) { > wm.insert(new Data(rand.nextInt(4), > rand.nextDouble()-0.5)); > } > en = (new Date()).getTime(); > System.out.println(" facts = " + (en-st)); > > // Now run the rules > st = (new Date()).getTime(); > wm.fireAllRules(); > en = (new Date()).getTime(); > System.out.println(" rules = " + (en-st)); > > // Clean up > wm.dispose(); > > System.out.println("\n"); > } > > This code is based on the HelloWorldExample.java code from the manual > and the setup for the rule base is the same as in the manual. As the > number of facts increases runtime increases dramatically: > > facts -- runtime (ms) > 10 -- 168 > 20 -- 166 > 30 -- 344 > 40 -- 587 > 50 -- 1215 > 60 -- 1931 > 70 -- 2262 > 80 -- 3000 > 90 -- 4754 > > with a maximum memory use of about 428 MB RAM. By contrast, if I use > sequential stateless sessions, everything runs in about 1-5 ms. > > Is there something in my set up that would cause this, or is this how > one would expect Drools to scale? I read about people using thousands > of facts so I suspect I'm setting something up incorrectly. > > Any help appreciated! > > Ron > > _________________________________________________________________ > The other season of giving begins 6/24/08. Check out the i'm Talkathon. > http://www.imtalkathon.com?source=TXT_EML_WLH_SeasonOfGiving > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
