Asankha,

You might have pinpointed the problem. One run of the DummyService takes about 900 ms. But since we really calculate something it will keep the processor busy when there are simultaneous runs of the DummyService. We notice that the service time grows semi-linear. With our new tests in our Linux environment, we noticed dropped message from 35 simultaneous users. So your 30 s might also be pretty accurate, when our Tomcat servers receive 35 simultaneous requests, the DummyService will run approximately 31 s. Can you please help us fine tuning our Linux environment, but I have to mention one more thing: I'm a Linux novice.

Regards and many thanks,
Gregory

Asankha C. Perera wrote:
Hi Gregory

I finally got the time to look into your code after being almost done building the final Synapse 1.1 artifacts..

I think I found your problem, do you see the time being printed on the System.out by the DummyService being more than 30 seconds or so for some reason before the errors happen?

e.g.
time: 18.555
time: 17.479
time: 17.062
time: 6.689
time: 3.633
time: 0.946
time: 0.939

Even if what you see is ~25 seconds.. there is a good possibility that some of the requests exceed the default socket timeout of your system which usually could be ~30 seconds. I load tested Synapse with our SimpleStockQuoteService and another faster version of that I typically use, and we still can do many thousands of connections without any issues as before.

So first, can you try to make your DummyService reply faster.. say within a second or so and try your load test again? If this works, you could play around with the OS tuning to support larger timeouts and if you use Linux by then I could help you :-)

asankha

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Reply via email to