SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION and NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN_SESSION are only
effective if STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server otherwise it´s settings will
be ignored.

The default for SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION is true and
NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN_SESSION is 20 and are recommended if you use
STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server to avoid strange side effects.

2005/11/3, CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> So is there enough information at the moment to make a recommendation about
> how to set the parameters?  For example:
>
> 1. If I set STATE_SAVING_METHOD=client, should I then set
> SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION=false?
>
> 2. If I set STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server, should I then set
> SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION=true?
>
> - Brendan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vesa Lindfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:51 AM
> Cc: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: Some notes of my loadtest results
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have now tested org.apache.myfaces.SERIALIZE
> _STATE_IN_SESSION=false - and it worked like charm in the same Itanium
> environment the earlier test of nightly build was giving bad results.
> Average response time was now 116ms and no high load on processors.
>
> I also tried
> org.apache.myfaces.SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION=true &
> org.apache.myfaces.NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN_SESSION=3.
> It gave bad results (average 19419 ms and lot of load) again - but that was
> expected as the memory or garbage collection was not the problem earlier,
> just processor load.
>
> We are using t:saveStates in our application, and I'm not sure if
> SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION had effect when I tried to update-operation of
> same pojo (pojo moved between pages with t:saveState) in two different
> views, sometimes hibernate gave nicely announcement (with later update
> operation) that data is stale and sometimes not, but it could also be some
> caching issue or something - must be checked later..
> Can you please give me an example when I can expect some issues with
> SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION=false ?
>
> Anyway, I can now continue testing 100 users with this setup in other
> platforms (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Compaq and Linux) - thanks!
>
> --- VLi ---
>
>
> On 11/3/05, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @Vesa could you run your tests again with the nightly and define the
> > context param
> org.apache.myfaces.SERIALIZE_STATE_IN_SESSION with a
> > value set to false in your web.xml?
> >
> > You can also try to change the setting for
> > org.apache.myfaces.NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN_SESSION which
> defines how many
> > views are held in the session (default = 20). This might cause a
> > garbage collector problem if memory is limited.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your tests!
> >
> > 2005/11/2, Vesa Lindfors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >  We have small CRUD application that I have started to load-test in
> > > different platforms. I'm using Myfaces impl + hibenate + Java 1.4.2.
> > >
> > > Test-case 1 (25% of users): Login – Creation of pojo and storing it to
> db -
> > > Listing pojos in db- - Search of created pojo – Remove of created pojo –
> > > Search of removed pojo – Logout .
> > >  Test-case 2 (75% of users): Login – Listing pojos in db - Search of
> some
> > > pojos – Logout.
> > >
> > > Tester is run with 100 threads (=users) and set to use  20 +-10 seconds
> > > delay per page to simulate end users actions.
> > >  "Ramp times" are set so that there is one logging-in per second.
> > >
> > > I noticed that application is really slow already in first tests. It is
> not
> > > so bad in my Win laptop, but same application is really too much for 4
> > > processor HP-itanium or 20 processor solaris machine (both few years
> old).
> > > Slowness is due to application's processor capacity usage in machines.
> > > Memory or garbage collection is not the issue.
> > >  After while there is hardly any "IDLE" capasity and machines start to
> use
> > > plenty of "SYS" time. Response times are after that really long.
> > >  This can be achieved just by running those 100 users once.
> > >
> > >
> > >  During development we have used "STATE_SAVING_METHOD=client".
> > >  When turning to "STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server", load problems disappears.
> > >  This was tested with Myfaces-all.jar 1.1.1.
> > >
> > >
> > >  When I noticed that with nightly build it is now possible to use server
> > > side state saving, and still having multiple browser views (=tabs).
> > >  So I decided to test that possibility also.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Following HP-Itanium result lines describes how stalled the machine has
> > > been with client side state saving.
> > >  And that there is maybe similar problems in the NB version of server
> side
> > > state saving:
> > >
> > >  1.1.1 average response time when "STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server ":
> > >   145 ms
> > >
> > > 1.1.1 average response time when "STATE_SAVING_METHOD= client":
> > >   82358 ms -> > 80 seconds
> > >
> > > 20051030NB average response time when "STATE_SAVING_METHOD=server":
>    32440
> > > ms -> >32 seconds
> > >
> > > Results are sad because 100 really friendly users is not really so much
> for
> > > web app - average throughput was only 2,5/second in successfully
> > > server-side-case.
> > >  The application is also pretty simple, although it's having
> > > searchable-sortable-pageable table.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Has anyone got similar kind of results? Br
> > >  -- VLi --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mathias
> >
>
>


--
Mathias

Reply via email to