[rules-users] Drools Perm gen grows constantly
Fairly new to drools here but we are using it on a standalone application to do some batch processing. The application is spring based and single-threaded. I am using a single stateful session that I build around 15,000 rules dynamically on process startup. The application then receives a message to process a set of records through the rules and write out the results. To do this I insert the data as facts and run a query to get the results. I must then remove all the facts that I created and also all the object that where created by the rules so that the session can be used for the next batch of records. This works fine and meets our performance requirements. However, after a time the process fails and upon investigation this is due to the perm gen space filling up with classes. The heap itself is fine and steady by the number of classes in the JVM keeps growing. These classes are all DefaultConsequenceInvokerGenerated classes appear to be created when my new facts are inserted. This is running on a 1.7 oracle JVM and I've tried -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSClassUnloadingEnabled but nothing helps. So is this expected behaviour? Is there an issue with how I am using drools? Any help much appreciated. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Perm-gen-grows-constantly-tp4026673.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Rule Example
I have some requirements regarding with my final project can someone help me formulate the rules? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-Example-tp4026674.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule Example
rule don't ask stupid questions when Request( information == null ) then System.out.println(Move along, nothing to see here.); end On 7 November 2013 11:10, chakez30 dspecialis...@yahoo.com wrote: I have some requirements regarding with my final project can someone help me formulate the rules? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-Example-tp4026674.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule Example
rule if you have nothing good to say when Response( information == Bully) then System.out.println(Just shut up.); end -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-Example-tp4026674p4026676.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule Example
It would be nice if you can put some of your requirements here. So that people who has similar requirements may benefit for the discussion.. Regards, Demian On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:28 AM, chakez30 dspecialis...@yahoo.com wrote: rule if you have nothing good to say when Response( information == Bully) then System.out.println(Just shut up.); end -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-Example-tp4026674p4026676.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Creating selection filter for PlanningEntity with 4 planning variables
We are developing an application whose PlanningEntity has multiple planning
variables, in fact 4. There are some moves that we do not want to select.
To ensure that the values proposed (moves) for the 4 different variables do
not break a constraint (between them). We wanted to filter out inacceptable
move configurations instead of using the score function to check the
constraints.
We studied the MoveSelector and SelectorFilter APIs and we implemented a
ChangeMove SelectionFilter as an UnionMoveSelector of ChangeMoves of the
four variables. The SelectionFilter is written to accept or refuse the
values (of the 4 variables) proposed.
However we encounter problems:
- The same ChangeMove (with same values of the 4 variables) are
proposed in consecutive moves and hence invocations of SelectionFilter
- The SelectionFilter rejects the values since it breaks
constraints
Then the we get a warning : “Bailing out of neverEnding selector ({}) to
avoid infinite loop”.
Hence we have been unable to implement the SelectionFilter for our purposes.
Could you advise us?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Creating-selection-filter-for-PlanningEntity-with-4-planning-variables-tp4026575p4026679.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Creating selection filter for PlanningEntity with 4 planning variables
On 07-11-13 16:21, maciekpob wrote:
We are developing an application whose PlanningEntity has multiple planning
variables, in fact 4. There are some moves that we do not want to select.
To ensure that the values proposed (moves) for the 4 different variables do
not break a constraint (between them). We wanted to filter out inacceptable
move configurations instead of using the score function to check the
constraints.
We studied the MoveSelector and SelectorFilter APIs and we implemented a
ChangeMove SelectionFilter as an UnionMoveSelector of ChangeMoves of the
four variables. The SelectionFilter is written to accept or refuse the
values (of the 4 variables) proposed.
However we encounter problems:
- The same ChangeMove (with same values of the 4 variables) are
proposed in consecutive moves and hence invocations of SelectionFilter
A) First, see what happens if you put on the unionMoveSelector
cacheType=PHASE (or STEP).
By using a cacheType != JIT you guarantee that the same ChangeMove
cannot be selected twice.
I would expect you to go out of memory in that case.
If that's not the case - then see C).
B) Next, see what happens if you put the cacheType=PHASE (or STEP) on
every changeMove, but not in unionMoveSelector.
This probably fixes the problem and might be your favorite way to do things.
But I want to know why you're getting the bailout, so do figure that out
and reply :)
- The SelectionFilter rejects the values since it breaks
constraints
Then the we get a warning : “Bailing out of neverEnding selector ({}) to
avoid infinite loop”.
C) Bailout is normally almost impossible to occur. Let me explain bailout.
Bailout only applies with filtering for cacheType=JIT, because JIT
selectors are neverEnding.
Bailout happens if it's has selected (size * 10) moves (so if there are
1 million possible moves, it must have selected 10 million moves)
AND not a single one of them was accepted by the filter.
Given the fact that it keeps selecting the same move - and that move is
not accepted, that might explain this though.
So the real question is why does it keep selecting the same move? Is
there only 1 move?
PS: what version are you using?
I remember fixing a bailout related problem in one of the CR's. Make
sure you're using 6.0.0.CR5 or higher.
Hence we have been unable to implement the SelectionFilter for our purposes.
Could you advise us?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Creating-selection-filter-for-PlanningEntity-with-4-planning-variables-tp4026575p4026679.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Optaplanner JAXB
No, because the *Config classes aren't annotated with JAXB annotations. There's a open discussion if we want to migrate from XStream to JAXB, so we can offer an XSD of the solver config. Also note, that these 2 things are completely distinct: 1) read a solver configuration from XML 2) read a solution dataset from XML (~ProblemIO) For 2), you can very easily replace XStreamProblemIO with a JaxbProblemIO (which should be easy to write). On 07-11-13 17:59, Jugu Dannie wrote: The optaplanner uses XStream for reading the solver configuration from XML. For using JAXB instead, is it sufficient to have custom implementation of XMLSolverFactory and SolverConfig? ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] lock-on-active
Hi folks, According to the user guide, lock-on-active “inhibits additional activations of all rules with this flag set within the same rule flow or agenda group”. I was doing a little testing of some rules earlier today, and noticed that lock-on-active seems to change behaviour when applied to rules which don’t have an agenda-group or rules flow-group defined. It also seemed to have a slightly inconsistent effect, although that may just be me not realising what it’s supposed to do. There doesn’t appear to be any documentation of what the attribute means when a rule is not part of a rule flow or agenda group. So I was wondering whether perhaps there is an expected/official behaviour, which is just not documented. Or is lock-on-active without a rule flow or agenda group an error? In which case is there a reason why it doesn’t cause a compilation error when the knowledge base is built? Yours curiously... Steve ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] lock-on-active
Lock-on-active was very recently the subject of a bad bug, DROOLS-281, which has been fixed a few days ago. This said, all rules that do not have an explicit group set end up in the MAIN (or DEFAULT, I don't remember) agenda group and then behave accordingly. Could you post the Drools version number and some more details on the example and the unexpected behavior? Thanks Davide On 11/07/2013 03:01 PM, Stephen Masters wrote: Hi folks, According to the user guide, lock-on-active “inhibits additional activations of all rules with this flag set within the same rule flow or agenda group”. I was doing a little testing of some rules earlier today, and noticed that lock-on-active seems to change behaviour when applied to rules which don’t have an agenda-group or rules flow-group defined. It also seemed to have a slightly inconsistent effect, although that may just be me not realising what it’s supposed to do. There doesn’t appear to be any documentation of what the attribute means when a rule is not part of a rule flow or agenda group. So I was wondering whether perhaps there is an expected/official behaviour, which is just not documented. Or is lock-on-active without a rule flow or agenda group an error? In which case is there a reason why it doesn’t cause a compilation error when the knowledge base is built? Yours curiously... Steve ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] lock-on-active
Interesting. It would probably help if the docs made that clear. :) I’m off to get myself some sleep just now, but I’ll do a push of the repo to GitHub tomorrow and point you at the tests. A summary of the behaviour is that I was seeing multiple activations of a rule, which went away when I added “lock-on-active” to that rule. However, that didn’t prevent other rules from activating afterwards. Unfortunately in a separate test, which added some more rules which would activate first, that rule ceased to activate at all. Despite the fact that it was the only rule with “lock-on-active” and no rules had an agenda-group attribute. This is using 5.5. I’ll probably be upgrading to the 5.6 CR tomorrow or at the weekend, so I should be able to confirm what happens there. I came across it because I was experimenting with mechanisms to ensure that a rule only activates once. It’s something that I find quite useful in a stateless session. Steve On 7 Nov 2013, at 22:29, Davide Sottara dso...@gmail.com wrote: Lock-on-active was very recently the subject of a bad bug, DROOLS-281, which has been fixed a few days ago. This said, all rules that do not have an explicit group set end up in the MAIN (or DEFAULT, I don't remember) agenda group and then behave accordingly. Could you post the Drools version number and some more details on the example and the unexpected behavior? Thanks Davide On 11/07/2013 03:01 PM, Stephen Masters wrote: Hi folks, According to the user guide, lock-on-active “inhibits additional activations of all rules with this flag set within the same rule flow or agenda group”. I was doing a little testing of some rules earlier today, and noticed that lock-on-active seems to change behaviour when applied to rules which don’t have an agenda-group or rules flow-group defined. It also seemed to have a slightly inconsistent effect, although that may just be me not realising what it’s supposed to do. There doesn’t appear to be any documentation of what the attribute means when a rule is not part of a rule flow or agenda group. So I was wondering whether perhaps there is an expected/official behaviour, which is just not documented. Or is lock-on-active without a rule flow or agenda group an error? In which case is there a reason why it doesn’t cause a compilation error when the knowledge base is built? Yours curiously... Steve ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] How I18N is built in droolsjbpm workbench projects
Hello, To help those who are interested in I18N of droolsjbpm workbench, I have posted a wiki page about build tips. https://community.jboss.org/wiki/HowI18NIsBuiltInDroolsjbpmWorkbenchProjects Feel free to update the page if you want to correct / add information. Cheers, Toshiya ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
