what are the 3 changes?
On Nov 15, 2007 8:50 AM, FredAtMina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > just to let you know: using the 3 small changes described in the > performance > posts, and using a join on the filterWrite, the client is now running fine > on a machine with a load of 10 (Solaris, 2 CPUs). The trouble happens at a > load of 14 or higher. > So we can consider that these 3 settings are really needed (should they be > default ?). > > Thanks for your time. Thanks for you framework! > > Fred > > > FredAtMina wrote: > > > > Hi Trustin, > > > > unfortunately, as this involved some specific server behavior (which is > > not accessible), this is not possible. > > I ran some few tests, and noticed that in fact, the trouble is not only > > for the read, but also for the write (12" sometimes, in my test, between > > the filterWrite and the data on the wire), even the idle notification is > > late (by 8" in the same case, but this is "normal" as the read is late > > within the mina layer), so this may be, helas, only a side effect of the > > load on the server (which is not related to the client using mina but to > > other processes which can take lots of CPU cycle for a small period of > > time). I'm not sure how /if I can improve this. If I look at the logs I > > have, I have a "hole" of 10 seconds which means during this time, > nothing > > happens at the application layer. Is there something at the network > layer > > or is it only because the process doesn't have much CPU during this > short > > period of time I don't know. I'll take a look at the performance hints > you > > gave in some posts to see if this can help. > > > > Regards, > > > > --Fred > > > > > > Trustin Lee wrote: > >> > >> Hi Fred, > >> > >> I'd like to run the test by myself to track the problem down, because > >> it's not really easy to give any advice as you know. > >> > >> Trustin > >> > >> On Nov 14, 2007 7:37 AM, FredAtMina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> during some tests, I noticed that, under heavy load on the physical > >>> machine > >>> (load of 10 for 2 CPUs), data are entering the machine at time t0 but > >>> are > >>> available for messageReceived at t0 + N seconds, where N can be more > >>> than 10 > >>> seconds... > >>> The test: > >>> - client sending 1 byte and reading some bytes > >>> (a) everything is fine when load is under 4 (roughly) > >>> (b) when server load is above 4, then delay appears > >>> I did a tcpdump to see data at the OS layer (data entering the OS) > >>> and common logging to see data at the messageReceived layer > >>> > >>> For write, delay occurs sometimes during the same period, but with > less > >>> than > >>> 1 second between filterWrite and data being sent by the server. > >>> > >>> As the data is small (1 byte written, few bytes read), but we have > 500+ > >>> concurrent connections, is there any customization, through the API, > >>> that > >>> can be made. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Fred > >>> -- > >>> View this message in context: > >>> > http://www.nabble.com/Delay-between-data-reception-by-the-OS-and-by-messageReceived-tf4801019s16868.html#a13736157 > >>> Sent from the Apache MINA Support Forum mailing list archive at > >>> Nabble.com. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> what we call human nature is actually human habit > >> -- > >> http://gleamynode.net/ > >> -- > >> PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Delay-between-data-reception-by-the-OS-and-by-messageReceived-tf4801019s16868.html#a13768003 > Sent from the Apache MINA Support Forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com > . > > -- -------------------------------- The adjuration to be "normal" seems shockingly repellent to me; I see neither hope nor comfort in sinking to that low level. I think it is ignorance that makes people think of abnormality only with horror and allows them to remain undismayed at the proximity of "normal" to average and mediocre. For surely anyone who achieves anything is, essentially, abnormal. Dr. Karl Menninger
