I saw this.  thx.  hopefully I'll get to review and apply this weekend

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I finally got enough time to make those patches.
>
> All tests succeeded.
>
> On Feb 23, 2:20 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > yes please.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Gildas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> ..
> >
> > --
> > Ken Egozi.
> http://www.kenegozi.com/bloghttp://www.delver.comhttp://www.musicglue.comhttp://www.castleproject.orghttp://www.gotfriends.co.il
> >
>


-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to