Mark, Can you tell me what application server you are using?
Are you using any session replication and if so what kind? What OS are you using? Are you using Session Affinity? What JSF implementation are you using? We are using myFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 (old and not able to upgrade at this point). Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning +1 mem is barely a problem these days. Actually we are serving 60.000++ users per day without any mem problems (w 100 views/session ServerSide-StateSaving). We need some low GB mem on our 48GB RAM server... Even if you have 1MB of session mem per user then you can serve tons of users. LieGrue, strub >________________________________ >From: Tobias Eisentrager <teisentrae...@googlemail.com> >To: MyFaces Discussion <users@myfaces.apache.org> >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:46 PM >Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > >David, > >Usually memory is the problem - but sometimes there are also CPU problems - >you can run WebSphere for example on the Mainframe. Compared to a Linux Box >CPU time can be expensive there. > >Are you running on a 64 bit Architecture? Memory is not that expensive these >days ;-) > >What is you total memory usage? > >Toby > >On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < >david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > >> Scott, >> >> With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted >> size for session size with JSF? >> >> All, >> >> Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make >> use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - >> from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing >> beans? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM >> To: users@myfaces.apache.org >> Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning >> >> Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is >> unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in >> >> memory. >> >> You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you >> >> up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the >> client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home >> grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. >> >> One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the >> case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the >> session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are >> updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm >> wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might >> get you some better results. >> >> Scott >> >> On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > >> > >> > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session >> > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. >> > >> > >> > >> > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere >> > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) >> > >> > >> > >> > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - >> > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server >> and >> > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but >> > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. >> > >> > >> > >> > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of >> > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. >> > >> > >> > >> > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and >> are >> > looking at changing them to request scope. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also found the following: >> > >> http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp >> > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning >> how >> > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under >> > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. >> > >> > >> > >> > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean >> > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the >> > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. >> Looking >> > for clarification on this one. >> > >> > >> > >> > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF >> > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users >> session? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is >> > this just the way when using JSF? >> > >> > >> > >> > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF >> > application? >> > >> > >> > >> > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to >> > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the >> > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object >> in >> > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session >> > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all >> session >> > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear >> > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the >> > object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should >> be >> > picking up that change. >> > >> > >> >> > > >
