LJ, can you simplify the submit process such that the web service call amounts to nothing more than saving a record and then do all the extra processing required to do the "real" submission asynchronously, so to speak. For example, the web service call simply saves a new record to a processing form and then completes. Then any extra processing required on that record happens in an escalation so that it doesn't delay the client and allows maximum throughput from the perspective of the client. Taking an approach like that could increase your submission throughput from the client's perspective, although you still have real limits on what the system can actually handle (due to CPU limits, etc.).
Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LJ Longwing Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fast/List Concurrent settings? ** LOL.....consider this Rick....Consider a 'submit' to be an interface that allows ALL attributes needed to completely configure a change with a single button press. This may be a bad example...if it is I'm sorry...I really don't do ITSM....but the submit in question on our system actually averages about 40 seconds. Makes no less than 4 calls to other external systems via web services and performs more calculations than I care to think about. That being what it is....what would you do in that situation? ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fast/List Concurrent settings? ** If your submits are taking 10 seconds each, you have a significant problem, my friend! Rick On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM, LJ Longwing <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** I completely agree with everything you said....but as you mentioned, if you have 60 submits and have 10 threads...you are only handling 10 of those 60 concurrently....so if each transaction takes an average of say...10 seconds...the first 10 will complete in 10, the next 10 in 20, and so on with the final set of 10 taking a full 60 seconds from time to complete to process. If your external application has a timeout of say....45 seconds then you are only going to be able to handle 40 of the 60 submitted concurrently and as such would have a 1/3 failure rate....in that situation would you then set your threads to say....15 to make it so that you could handle 60 in 40 seconds or would you take it to 60 to be able to handle 60 in 10 seconds? ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:39 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Fast/List Concurrent settings? ** I would think that one of the larger software-related issues that would affect the number of concurrent Inserts would be the Index structure. I am sure you know this, but for the benefit of those who don't, indexes are meant to help us search on a form more easily. However, above a certain number (around 8 for a Remedy form), that cause performance degradation when creating a new record, because each of the indexes has to be updated as part of the creation process. If a system is seeing slow creates, that's the first thing I check. One other thing to think about is that since each thread can cache 5 processes (that's the last number I heard, anyway) in addition to the one currently being handled, you could, with 10 Fast (Single-API) threads, handle 60 concurrent create processes without a transaction loss. There would probably be a bit of a delay for those farther back in the queue, but if you had a reasonably robust system, most users wouldn't notice it much. I seriously doubt all but a very few systems have to handle anything resembling that kind of concurrent load, with the exception of those who have a large number of system (i.e. NMS) generated records. Also look at the Entry ID Block size when doing this test. If - AND ONLY IF - you are regularly having large numbers of concurrent inserts, you can set the Entry ID Block size to something like 10 to cut down the number of requests to the DB for Entry IDs. That is alleged to help with create times, though I have not seen that be the case in practical use. Rick On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:27 PM, LJ Longwing <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** Here is an interesting question for you thread experts out there. How many concurrent 'creates' does your system support? Creates being a generic term for any given process that your system supports. The system that I support is a home grown quote/order management system and last year we stood up a web service interface for people to be able to generate quotes from their systems and get pricing back. The initial interface was setup to handle 3 concurrent creates...but as soon as it was a success we started getting slammed with several hundred at a time and choking our system. Through rigorous testing and tweaking over the last couple of weeks I have been able to get roughly 60 concurrent going through the system with reasonable performance....so at this point I have my Fast set to 30/100 min/max....confirmed that I'm not maxing anything specific out....but I personally have never run above 20ish threads as a high because most transactions are short and a fast thread count of 20 will handle hundreds of users in 'normal' operation.....so I was just wondering how many requests you guys have your system to handle concurrently....and just for verification...I'm talking about 'all of them hit the button within a second of each other' type of concurrent...not 'I hove 400 people logged on concurrently' _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
