Re: Memory consumption per session
yes, if you only use bookmarkable links you can remove items after they render. but like i said, component frameworks are not really made to handle modelling repeaters with 10K rows. each component has overhead, so when you are trying to render 10K*~10 components per row you end up with 100K components. in these (extremely rare cases) you should drop down to using raw html to eliminate component overhead so instead of 100K components you only have one. you have to do a bit more work yourself, but at least you still retain encapsulation. -igor On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it help using Bookmarkable links? > > ** > Martin > > 2008/11/21 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Siemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the >>> ListViews contain Link components for user interaction. >> >> you can generate a link yourself easily, let your custom listview >> implement ILinkListener and call urlfor(ILinkListener.INTERFACE) on >> the component which will generate the url. than append the id to it >> and you are done. >> >>>This worked, but unfortunately the links did not work >>> anymore, because there were no link components on the page left ... >> >> ^ and now you know why the items are kept :) >> >> >>> >>> 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] >>> >>> >> >> - >> 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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
Would it help using Bookmarkable links? ** Martin 2008/11/21 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Siemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the >> ListViews contain Link components for user interaction. > > you can generate a link yourself easily, let your custom listview > implement ILinkListener and call urlfor(ILinkListener.INTERFACE) on > the component which will generate the url. than append the id to it > and you are done. > >>This worked, but unfortunately the links did not work >> anymore, because there were no link components on the page left ... > > ^ and now you know why the items are kept :) > > >> >> 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] >> >> > > - > 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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
Martin,
There's no xml dom generator. Instead, Wicket uses a simple stream. In the
rendering phase, you can execute getResponse().write(...) to write anything
to the browser.
--Cristiano
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Martin Makundi <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the out-of-the-box xml dom generator for wicket, if I wanted
> to use such tool for generating the html structure?
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2008/11/20 Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > add(new Label("raw", "Foo").setEscapeModelStrings(false));
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
> >> use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
> >>
> >> Is it possible, for example, to replace a element
> >> on a panel with such raw dom content?
> >>
> >> **
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> 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]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
> >
> > -
> > 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]
>
>
Re: Memory consumption per session
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Siemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the > ListViews contain Link components for user interaction. you can generate a link yourself easily, let your custom listview implement ILinkListener and call urlfor(ILinkListener.INTERFACE) on the component which will generate the url. than append the id to it and you are done. >This worked, but unfortunately the links did not work > anymore, because there were no link components on the page left ... ^ and now you know why the items are kept :) > > 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] > > - 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]
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
Ralf,
If you want to discard the generated text after rendering, you may use a
detachable model, like LoadableDetachableModel:
IModel model = new LoadableDetachableModel() {
public Object load() {
return generateMyHTML();
}
}
add(new Label("raw", model).setEscapeModelStrings(false));
Assigning the text directly to the label (as in Label("raw",
"Foo")) will keep a reference to the String 'forever'. It's ok when
the HTML is short, but it doesn't seem to be your case.
--Cristiano
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> add(new Label("raw", "Foo").setEscapeModelStrings(false));
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
> > use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
> >
> > Is it possible, for example, to replace a element
> > on a panel with such raw dom content?
> >
> > **
> > Martin
> >
> > 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> 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]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Re: Memory consumption per session
What is the out-of-the-box xml dom generator for wicket, if I wanted
to use such tool for generating the html structure?
**
Martin
2008/11/20 Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> add(new Label("raw", "Foo").setEscapeModelStrings(false));
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
>> use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
>>
>> Is it possible, for example, to replace a element
>> on a panel with such raw dom content?
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>> 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 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]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>
> -
> 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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
add(new Label("raw", "Foo").setEscapeModelStrings(false));
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
> use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
>
> Is it possible, for example, to replace a element
> on a panel with such raw dom content?
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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]
>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory consumption per session
What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should use some xml dom which is included with wicket)? Is it possible, for example, to replace a element on a panel with such raw dom content? ** Martin 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
BTW, is it easy to control what wicket stores in session? May be by patching wicket code? P.S. Sorry if the question is lame, I have just started studying wicket and I want to decide whether to use it in production. > > 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. >
Re: Memory consumption per session
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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
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. >> > >> > >> > - >> > 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] >> >> > > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory consumption per session
200kb is quite a lot for page with listview with 50 entries (unless there's lot of other components). It's more likely that you don't detach something properly. Still, what are you hardware specs and number of concurrent users? -Matej On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM, 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]
Re: Memory consumption per session
Your ListView instances must be holding on to domain objects. You should use LoadableDetachableModels so that the ListView doesn't hold on to references to objects. The most common memory issue is always that your components are holding on to objects directly or using Model, which holds the object. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:15 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] > >
Re: Memory consumption per session
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. > > > > > > - > > 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] > > -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
Re: Memory consumption per session
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. > > > - > 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]
