So, should I include this modification in the patch ?
On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/bloghttp://www.delver.comhttp://www.musicglue.comhttp://www.castleproject.orghttp://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
