this would render the dict adapter assembly a prerequisite for monorail (like Binder etc.)
not that I have any kind of a problem with that. I find the dict adpater extremely useful when dealing with Session, Cache and AppSettings, on top of PropertyBag and Flash. all relevant to all view engines. On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote: > > A little question about the AspViewBase patch : > > To get the IDictionaryAdapterFactory from the IEngineContext, this > service must be registered in the underlying IoC container. As far as > I know, this component is external, and nothing forces someone to > register it. > > The question is : should it be added to the IMonoRailServices > interface ? > > On Feb 21, 11:03 pm, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote: > > :) Well, I'll send you both monday then. > > > > I'm glad if this can be helpful. > > > > -- > > Gildas > > > > On Feb 21, 10:44 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is a probable reason - sloppy coding on my part. > > > > > I'd appreciate a patch. > > > > > and another one for the assemblies dictionary in the > DictAdapterFactory. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Gildas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > So, from what I saw with dottrace, a lot of time was spent in the > > > > dictionary adapter factory, which I use heavily. In fact, the > > > > Assembly.GetName() method is slow. > > > > > > The problem is that I use for Session, Context, view components and > > > > controllers property bag and flash, even for helpers access from a > > > > view component code. AspView use it too. > > > > > > So, I made my own implementation of the dictionary adapter factory > > > > which keeps a Dictionary<Assembly, string> with the assemblies and > > > > their names. I saw an improvement already with this. Then, I found > out > > > > that AspViewBase instanciate a new DictionaryAdapterFactory in its > > > > constructor instead of resolving this service through the engine > > > > context. I changed that too. I hope Ken will read this. There's > > > > probably a good reason for that but the performances were better too > > > > after this change. > > > > > > Andre, I've checked the lock counters for SQL : nothing special. > There > > > > was a lot of locks request, but no wait time and no dead locks. > > > > > > I'll let the website run some days and will let you know how it goes. > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > -- > > > > Gildas > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:29 pm, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I know, it does not looks complex on the public side. But the > > > > > administration is. > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:28 pm, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > For information, the website is the one accessible through those > > > > > > urls : > > > > > > > >http://octogames.fr(french)http://jogar-jogos.net(pt) > > > > > > > > And 100 others domains, in a bit more than 20 languages. > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:23 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > use DotTrace to pin point the problem, please. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Gildas < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:11 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can you repro this on dev machine? > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Gildas < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andre, thanks for answering. I did answer minutes ago > but it > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > like google did not care... > > > > > > > > > > > > We use NH 2nd level cache a lot and the sql server > process > > > > rarely move > > > > > > > > > > but I must admit I did not check those counters. I'll try > that > > > > > > > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Gildas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 6:41 pm, Andre Loker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > Just a wild guess, maybe there are concurrent database > locks > > > > that > > > > > > > > block > > > > > > > > > > > the requests. Have you checked the isolation levels of > DB > > > > > > > > transactions > > > > > > > > > > > and the Windows performance logs (there are some > performance > > > > counters > > > > > > > > > > > regarding sql server locks). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Andre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a rather complex monorail/activerecord/rhino > > > > application. > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed a very high CPU consumption under heavy load > so I > > > > tried to > > > > > > > > > > > > make some tests on our development server with wcat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When only one user is accessing the application, the > CPU > > > > stay > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 or 5%. As soon as another one is accessing the > > > > application at the > > > > > > > > > > > > same time, the CPU exceed 90%. We use a lot of > > > > viewcomponents which > > > > > > > > > > > > cache their output, so that's should not be the > rendering > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect a lock or something similar is happening. I > tried > > > > to find > > > > > > > > > > > > out what using dottrace but every single method take > a long > > > > time to > > > > > > > > > > > > execute when 2 users are accessing the application. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anybody have any ideas about what to look for ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Gildas > > > > > -- > > > Ken Egozi. > http://www.kenegozi.com/bloghttp://www.delver.comhttp://www.musicglue... > > > -- Ken Egozi. http://www.kenegozi.com/blog http://www.delver.com http://www.musicglue.com http://www.castleproject.org http://www.gotfriends.co.il --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
