On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:00:36AM -0700, Suhrawardi wrote: > > I made a very minimal version of the workflow application I'm currently > working on, with all the participants stubbed out: They simply return an ok. > I put this application on Github, so you can try it out for yourself: > https://github.com/suhrawardi/ruote_poc > > You can run the bin/test.rb script to start the workflow (see the > README.md). The first command line param is the number of workflows that is > started. > In the bin/app.rb file, you can change the nr of workflow engines that you > want to start to handle the requests (within the same process). In order to > handle the requests with multiple processes, just start bin/app.rb a few > times.
Hello Jarra, sorry, I will not use your "poc", I don't want to have Bunny/AMQP putting sticks in my wheels. I will try to build an example that really states "hey it's ruote's fault". In your "poc" readme, you don't mention ruote grinding to a halt. The perfomance section doesn't tell how many ruote workers you are running and which storage is used for the result. > For me, there is not much difference whether I run the application with > multiple engines, a single engine, or handled by multiple processes. Multiple workers? > Besides that, there is no gain when I switch to another storage > implementation (which you can change in lib/yaap/engine.rb). > > Mind that there is a 'progress' key in the workitem hash that is dumped by > the test script. It is really weird, but some steps seem to be started and > finished more then once... While that should not be the case (workflow is > in participants/yaap_mobile_auditor/workflows/main.conf.rb). That's an interesting piece of feedback. Your whole example is superbly packaged, but I find it confusing that a workflow definition is places under participants/. In your tests, the concurrent_iterator after "step5", how many branches does it "spawn"? > Hope you can help us pinpoint where the problem is. If you have any > questions, or like me to try something else, please let me know! :-) OK, I will try building my own load bench around your process definition. Thanks in advance for the answer about the width of the concurrent-iterator, -- John Mettraux - http://lambda.io/jmettraux -- -- you received this message because you are subscribed to the "ruote users" group. to post : send email to [email protected] to unsubscribe : send email to [email protected] more options : http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruote" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
