Re: Memory consumption per session
Yes, each of the list items contains 10 child components, and all models are detached correctly. So the 2 KB per list item seem to be normal. We have not finally identified the large sessions as the root cause of the server crashes, but the 2 MB sessions caught our eyes immediately. One of our heap dumps showed 10.000 session with a total amount of 300 MB, which makes an average of 30 KB. Most of the 10.000 sessions are probably not sessions by human visitors, but may instead result from search engine robots, where each request creates a new session. Ralf. Johan Compagner wrote: No if you really render 1000 rows (list items) in a list view ands those listitems have textfields or labels again then yes it could expand quite a lot But 1000 listems with maybe 4,5 components in each listitem then that will be 5000 components on just that page that will cost memory On 11/20/08, Jeremy Thomerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was only after he cut the listview sizes - problem is that his sessions are 2MB now. Still should support quite a few (1000 = 2GB), but there is probably a memory issue to address there. On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 200kb per session sounds very reasonable. Then you should be able to handle quite a lot of concurrent sessions. What kind of hardware do you use? On 11/20/08, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, we have recently launched our new Wicket-based website, and now we are experiencing that the memory consumption of the website is very high, so that it crashes the site regularly. When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP sessions that consume up to 2 MB of memory, mostly because there are very large ListViews with up to 1000 entries, where each entry consumes about 2 KB. Our preliminary solution is to limit the size of those ListViews to a maximum of 50 entries, but even in those cases the session size is still at about 200 KB, which seems quite large to us. I know that there have already been some discussions about memory consumption in Wicket due to the fact that the whole Page object of the last visited page is stored in the session; but what I'd like to know is: Have you experienced session sizes in a comparable magnitude, or are we doing something wrong? Or is this something we have to live with when using Wicket? We are using Wicket 1.3.5. Thanks, Ralf. -- Ralf Siemon IT Tel 0561-820126-631 Fax 0561-820126-601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Firmensitz Verwaltung: Gourmondo GmbH - Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 9 - 80807 München Versandzentrum und Kundenservice: Gourmondo GmbH - Falderbaumstraße 12 - 34123 Kassel Geschäftsführung: Pascal Zier Registergericht: München Handelsregister: HRB 175597 USt-ID: DE232650271 http://www.gourmondo.de - einfach mehr genießen ++ Entdecken Sie den neuen Gourmondo-Shop: http://www.gourmondo.de ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory consumption per session
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the ListViews contain Link components for user interaction. Actually I was wondering why it is necessary to keep all of the list items in the session when the next time the page is rendered the list items are regenerated according to the underlying model of the ListView. The first thing I tried was removing all list items after the page was rendered - which I am not allowed. Then, after I studied the wicket sources, I tried a weird hack and wrote a replacement for ListView which added the list items as auto components. This worked, but unfortunately the links did not work anymore, because there were no link components on the page left ... Ralf. Igor Vaynberg wrote: if you are planning on displaying 1000 rows per page, which is quiet uncommon for webapps, you should produce output as raw html instead of using listview and adding components inside. -igor On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, we have recently launched our new Wicket-based website, and now we are experiencing that the memory consumption of the website is very high, so that it crashes the site regularly. When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP sessions that consume up to 2 MB of memory, mostly because there are very large ListViews with up to 1000 entries, where each entry consumes about 2 KB. Our preliminary solution is to limit the size of those ListViews to a maximum of 50 entries, but even in those cases the session size is still at about 200 KB, which seems quite large to us. I know that there have already been some discussions about memory consumption in Wicket due to the fact that the whole Page object of the last visited page is stored in the session; but what I'd like to know is: Have you experienced session sizes in a comparable magnitude, or are we doing something wrong? Or is this something we have to live with when using Wicket? We are using Wicket 1.3.5. Thanks, Ralf. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory consumption per session
Hi, we have recently launched our new Wicket-based website, and now we are experiencing that the memory consumption of the website is very high, so that it crashes the site regularly. When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP sessions that consume up to 2 MB of memory, mostly because there are very large ListViews with up to 1000 entries, where each entry consumes about 2 KB. Our preliminary solution is to limit the size of those ListViews to a maximum of 50 entries, but even in those cases the session size is still at about 200 KB, which seems quite large to us. I know that there have already been some discussions about memory consumption in Wicket due to the fact that the whole Page object of the last visited page is stored in the session; but what I'd like to know is: Have you experienced session sizes in a comparable magnitude, or are we doing something wrong? Or is this something we have to live with when using Wicket? We are using Wicket 1.3.5. Thanks, Ralf. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
