Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Hi Per Very nice article. It's good for newcommers and I even saw a thing or two thats new for me. About the "avoid visible()!" part have you tried shiro or wicket security to manage rendering of your components, I dont know if they just do a set visible but if they don't it would sure make the code a lot nicer.. Now thinking of it, one could make a simple annotation or maybe something else that would replace all components that had setVisible(false) with a webmarkup container.. Btw are you using IOC preferly guice and have any tips for optimizing this? regards Nino 2011/3/1 Per > Hi Antoine, > > I have started collecting my hints over here: > > http://www.small-improvements.com/blog/technical/tuning-wicket-session-size > > Please note that much of it may be considered hacks and bad practice (I > am just a Wicket user, not a Wicket master). There may be better ways to > achieve the same results. I'd love to get feedback on these suggestions! > So give it a shot and tell me how you went! > > Good luck! > Per > > > > *bump* > > > > I'm one of those people who is reading :-) > > > > > > Antoine > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, > > > but thanks for the hint. > > > > > > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the > > > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and > > > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this > > > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this > > > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a > > > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Per > > > > > > > > >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > > >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > > >> some of > > >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > > >> LDMs, > > >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > > >> there, and no > > >> > finals. > > >> > > >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a > > >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary > > >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the > > >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you > > >> might use. > > >> > > >> Eelco > > >> > > >> ----- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ------------ > > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > > >> discussion below: > > >> > > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html > > < > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html?by-user=t > > > > >> > > >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > > >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > > >> > > < > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0 > > < > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0&by-user=t > >>. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html > > < > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
I found this useful also : http://www.small-improvements.com/10-things-about-apache-wicket-i-love/wicket:pageMapName/wicket-8 [same site, same author, kudos Per] On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, wrote: > Great stuff, could you let us know when you have completed a 'final' > version so I can check back? > > > > From: Per > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Date: 03/01/2011 02:22 PM > Subject: Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?) > > > > Hi Antoine, > > I have started collecting my hints over here: > > http://www.small-improvements.com/blog/technical/tuning-wicket-session-size > > > Please note that much of it may be considered hacks and bad practice (I > am just a Wicket user, not a Wicket master). There may be better ways to > achieve the same results. I'd love to get feedback on these suggestions! > So give it a shot and tell me how you went! > > Good luck! > Per > > > > *bump* > > > > I'm one of those people who is reading :-) > > > > > > Antoine > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, > > > but thanks for the hint. > > > > > > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the > > > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and > > > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this > > > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing > this > > > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a > > > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Per > > > > > > > > >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > > >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to > shrink > > >> some of > > >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > > >> LDMs, > > >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > > >> there, and no > > >> > finals. > > >> > > >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a > > >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary > > >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the > > >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you > > >> might use. > > >> > > >> Eelco > > >> > > >> --------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > > >> discussion below: > > >> > > > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html > > > < > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html?by-user=t > > > > >> > > >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream > come > > >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > > >> > > < > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0 > > > < > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0&by-user=t > >>. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html > > > < > >
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Great stuff, could you let us know when you have completed a 'final' version so I can check back? From: Per To: users@wicket.apache.org Date: 03/01/2011 02:22 PM Subject: Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?) Hi Antoine, I have started collecting my hints over here: http://www.small-improvements.com/blog/technical/tuning-wicket-session-size Please note that much of it may be considered hacks and bad practice (I am just a Wicket user, not a Wicket master). There may be better ways to achieve the same results. I'd love to get feedback on these suggestions! So give it a shot and tell me how you went! Good luck! Per > *bump* > > I'm one of those people who is reading :-) > > > Antoine > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, > > but thanks for the hint. > > > > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the > > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and > > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this > > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this > > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a > > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. > > > > Cheers, > > Per > > > > > >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > >> some of > >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > >> LDMs, > >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > >> there, and no > >> > finals. > >> > >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a > >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary > >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the > >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you > >> might use. > >> > >> Eelco > >> > >> ----- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------ > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > >> discussion below: > >> > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html > < http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html?by-user=t > > >> > >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > >> > < http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0 > < http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0&by-user=t >>. > > >> > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html > < http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html?by-user=t > > > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > ------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > -------- > If you reply to this em
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Hi Per, easy to read, good advice... Even the easiest stuff made me wonder whether I did that right... Excellent to see all these tips together. Thanks a bunch! Antoine On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Per wrote: > Hi Antoine, > > I have started collecting my hints over here: > > http://www.small-improvements.com/blog/technical/tuning-wicket-session-size > > Please note that much of it may be considered hacks and bad practice (I > am just a Wicket user, not a Wicket master). There may be better ways to > achieve the same results. I'd love to get feedback on these suggestions! > So give it a shot and tell me how you went! > > Good luck! > Per > > >> *bump* >> >> I'm one of those people who is reading :-) >> >> >> Antoine >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per <[hidden email] >> > wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, >> > but thanks for the hint. >> > >> > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the >> > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and >> > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this >> > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this >> > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a >> > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Per >> > >> > >> >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less >> >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink >> >> some of >> >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite >> >> LDMs, >> >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in >> >> there, and no >> >> > finals. >> >> >> >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a >> >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary >> >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the >> >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you >> >> might use. >> >> >> >> Eelco >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------ >> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the >> >> discussion below: >> >> >> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html >> <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html?by-user=t> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come >> >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here >> >> >> <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0 >> <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0&by-user=t>>. >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html >> <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html?by-user=t> >> > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> > >> > >> >> --------
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
yup, nice read. tks for sharing onComponentTag saved my arse too in the past. Probably that's why I don't think it's that ugly anymore :) On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM, robert.mcguinness < robert.mcguinness@gmail.com> wrote: > Per, > > Awesome summary. Much obliged. > > Rob > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3330455.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Per, Awesome summary. Much obliged. Rob -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3330455.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Hi Antoine, I have started collecting my hints over here: http://www.small-improvements.com/blog/technical/tuning-wicket-session-size Please note that much of it may be considered hacks and bad practice (I am just a Wicket user, not a Wicket master). There may be better ways to achieve the same results. I'd love to get feedback on these suggestions! So give it a shot and tell me how you went! Good luck! Per > *bump* > > I'm one of those people who is reading :-) > > > Antoine > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, > > but thanks for the hint. > > > > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the > > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and > > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this > > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this > > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a > > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. > > > > Cheers, > > Per > > > > > >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > >> some of > >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > >> LDMs, > >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > >> there, and no > >> > finals. > >> > >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a > >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary > >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the > >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you > >> might use. > >> > >> Eelco > >> > >> ----- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------- > >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > >> discussion below: > >> > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html > > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html?by-user=t> > >> > >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > >> > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0 > > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0&by-user=t>>. > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html > > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html?by-user=t> > > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > ------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > ------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussion below: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3330006.html > > > To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would b
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
*bump* I'm one of those people who is reading :-) Antoine On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Per wrote: > > > Hi, > > I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, > but thanks for the hint. > > In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the > onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and > I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this > comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this > in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a > summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. > > Cheers, > Per > > >> > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less >> > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink >> some of >> > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite >> LDMs, >> > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in >> there, and no >> > finals. >> >> How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a >> request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary >> data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the >> transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you >> might use. >> >> Eelco >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------ >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the >> discussion below: >> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html >> >> To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come >> true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here >> <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0>. >> > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Hi, I am measuring it in a profiler after the request has been completed, but thanks for the hint. In case anyone else is reading, I have been playing with the onComponentTag() and onComponentTagBody() methods on the weekend, and I've been able to reduce my page sizes significantly. Admittedly, this comes at the expense of flexibility and beauty, but I'm only doing this in the inner loops of very few pages, so who cares :-) Will write a summary with a couple of hints once I stop drowning in work. Cheers, Per > > Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > some of > > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > LDMs, > > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > there, and no > > finals. > > How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a > request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary > data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the > transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you > might use. > > Eelco > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussion below: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3316743.html > > > To unsubscribe from Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come > true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?), click here > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3308014&code=cGVyQGhhbWJ1cmcuZGV8MzMwODAxNHwtMjI2MTAwMzE0>. > > -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3317403.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
> Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink some of > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite LDMs, > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in there, and no > finals. How are you measuring this? Keep in mind that if you calculate when a request is still processing, you might still be measuring temporary data (e.g. for LoadableDetachableModel, you would also measure the transientModelObject, and same for any proxies (Spring/ Guice) you might use. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
How are you storing/retrieving your photos? I recently did some session size testing and I found the sessions were surprisingly small. Once I removed the detachable model wrapped around an object holding a photo (byte array) retrieved from the database my session size shot up considerably. From: Per To: users@wicket.apache.org Date: 02/16/2011 06:41 AM Subject:Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?) Hi Johan and Igor, well, on one hand I am using App Engine, and puts are limited to 1MB. Even with pagination and limitation of each page to 50 users (totalling 200Kb in memory for the whole page), I had to limit the pagemap size severely to ensure I am always below 1M. In Wicket 1.5 it's a lot easier to write an adaptive EvictionStrategy to control memory usage, so I can be more flexible and evict large pages more aggressively than smaller ones. Still, displaying say 500 users at once will still not be possible if each user-row can take as much as 5K. But I am not complaining. I knew that App Engine has this limitation, and I make my own product specifications, so I can live with it. On the plus side, App Engine (due to its restrictions) scales really well, and I am not worried if some day thousands of users will use my app concurrently. But although a typical server may have many Gigs these days, you'd still be in trouble if thousands of users came slurping 40M each, that's why I do think that session size remains an important consideration. I would strongly recommend anyone not to leave optimisation till the very last, but plan ahead and spike some of the most complex screens first, since Wicket *is* different in that respect. Sorry to hear I can't optimise easily, but thanks for the quick responses Johan and Igor! Your support on this forum is truly legendary! Will try to figure out the autoAdd() soon :-) Per > but if you have it down to 200K then 50 users it is nothing... thats > 10MB on memory > If if both where 2X so 400K and 100 users thats still only 40MB in > memory Thats for a server nothing.. > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:10, Per <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > > > > > So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of > research and > > profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K > or less > > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > some of > > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > LDMs, > > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > there, and no > > finals. > > > > What on earth am I doing wrong? > > > > My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should > list a > > few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an > > admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is > also a > > manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures > > (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly > > lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. > > > > Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up > for even > > just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 > Bytes > > is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a > ListItem, and > > some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for > a label > > with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the > whole > > list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small > numbers DO add > > up. > > > > My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list > items > > stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not > > maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws > away > > the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would > not work > > because I want some state in there, but you get my point. > > > > I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. > > > > Cheers, > > Per > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html > < http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html?by-user=t > > > Sent from the Users forum mailing list
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
Hi Johan and Igor, well, on one hand I am using App Engine, and puts are limited to 1MB. Even with pagination and limitation of each page to 50 users (totalling 200Kb in memory for the whole page), I had to limit the pagemap size severely to ensure I am always below 1M. In Wicket 1.5 it's a lot easier to write an adaptive EvictionStrategy to control memory usage, so I can be more flexible and evict large pages more aggressively than smaller ones. Still, displaying say 500 users at once will still not be possible if each user-row can take as much as 5K. But I am not complaining. I knew that App Engine has this limitation, and I make my own product specifications, so I can live with it. On the plus side, App Engine (due to its restrictions) scales really well, and I am not worried if some day thousands of users will use my app concurrently. But although a typical server may have many Gigs these days, you'd still be in trouble if thousands of users came slurping 40M each, that's why I do think that session size remains an important consideration. I would strongly recommend anyone not to leave optimisation till the very last, but plan ahead and spike some of the most complex screens first, since Wicket *is* different in that respect. Sorry to hear I can't optimise easily, but thanks for the quick responses Johan and Igor! Your support on this forum is truly legendary! Will try to figure out the autoAdd() soon :-) Per > but if you have it down to 200K then 50 users it is nothing... thats > 10MB on memory > If if both where 2X so 400K and 100 users thats still only 40MB in > memory Thats for a server nothing.. > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:10, Per <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > > > > > So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of > research and > > profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K > or less > > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink > some of > > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite > LDMs, > > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in > there, and no > > finals. > > > > What on earth am I doing wrong? > > > > My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should > list a > > few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an > > admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is > also a > > manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures > > (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly > > lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. > > > > Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up > for even > > just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 > Bytes > > is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a > ListItem, and > > some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for > a label > > with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the > whole > > list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small > numbers DO add > > up. > > > > My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list > items > > stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not > > maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws > away > > the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would > not work > > because I want some state in there, but you get my point. > > > > I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. > > > > Cheers, > > Per > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html > > <http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html?by-user=t> > > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > > > ------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > > ----
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
but if you have it down to 200K then 50 users it is nothing... thats 10MB on memory If if both where 2X so 400K and 100 users thats still only 40MB in memory Thats for a server nothing.. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:10, Per wrote: > > > So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of research and > profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink some of > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite LDMs, > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in there, and no > finals. > > What on earth am I doing wrong? > > My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should list a > few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an > admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is also a > manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures > (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly > lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. > > Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up for even > just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 Bytes > is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a ListItem, and > some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for a label > with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the whole > list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small numbers DO add > up. > > My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list items > stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not > maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws away > the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would not work > because I want some state in there, but you get my point. > > I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. > > Cheers, > Per > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
since you are using refreshingview for things you do not need to keep across requests you can try autoAdd(component) instead of add. those should be removed at the end of request. since refreshingview is rebuilt those things will be readded at next render. notice you cannot autoadd any components from page to ajaxlinks because you need that hierarchy there. also notice this is a pretty extreme optimization and should be handled with care. -igor On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Per wrote: > > > So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of research and > profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less > is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink some of > my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite LDMs, > CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in there, and no > finals. > > What on earth am I doing wrong? > > My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should list a > few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an > admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is also a > manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures > (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly > lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. > > Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up for even > just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 Bytes > is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a ListItem, and > some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for a label > with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the whole > list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small numbers DO add > up. > > My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list items > stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not > maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws away > the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would not work > because I want some state in there, but you get my point. > > I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. > > Cheers, > Per > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Just 100K per session? That would be my dream come true! (Anyone here who has tuned session size before?)
So I still haven't solved my memory issues, despite weeks of research and profiling. Reading in the other thread that a session size of 100K or less is achievable, I'll admit defeat now: I have not been able to shrink some of my pages(!) to less than 200K, not to mention the sessions. Despite LDMs, CompoundPropertyModels, and no, there are no domain objects in there, and no finals. What on earth am I doing wrong? My goal is to display a long list of, say, users. Each users should list a few labels (name, position, location, etc) and images to show who's an admin/poweruser. Each user has a profile picture. Each user who is also a manager should have image icons of their subordinates' profile pictures (e.g. a nested ListView) And I want 5 or 6 AJAX labels so I can quickly lock/unlock users, delete them, give and revoke certain rights. Despite lots of profiling each row is still 4K to 6K. This adds up for even just 50 users. Can this be reduced, at all? I mean, it seems that 56 Bytes is the minimum for a Label, 32 for a PropertyModel, 80 for a ListItem, and some 200 for an AjaxLink. 400 for an Image (or alternatively 272 for a label with 2 AttributeAppenders to also render an image), and unless the whole list disappears from the page's object graph, all those small numbers DO add up. My final hope was the RefreshingList, but no, it also keeps the list items stored in the page. What I really would like is a list that does not maintain all its items, but throws them away, just like a LDM throws away the domain object, and just reloads when needed. Okay, that would not work because I want some state in there, but you get my point. I really hope it's something totally obvious I missed. Cheers, Per -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Just-100K-per-session-That-would-be-my-dream-come-true-Anyone-here-who-has-tuned-session-size-before-tp3308014p3308014.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
