The memory 2GB is not much for a server but even that much is not being used
(due to CPU constraint).Max memory used is about 1.1GB or so when CPU has
hit 100%.
The numbers I posted are from my desktop (which has 4GB memory) as it is
easier to profile CPU on local desktop. The CPU usage is fairly high but I
do not have exact numbers.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Richard Yee <richard.k....@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ravi,
> If you are running on Windows, what does the TaskManager show as the CPU
> utilization? How much memory is also being used? 2Gb is not much memory for
> a production application. I have that much on my desktop.
>
> -Richard
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Jakob,
> >
> > The beans are not big. Also these tests have been performed under a
> single
> > user to measure the CPU timing. So I doubt locking/synchronization is an
> > issue.
> >
> > I would think that if there is synchronization, then the threads could be
> > waiting for long time, but lack of synchronization can only lead to
> corrupt
> > data not to higher CPU. Can you explain little bit how lack of
> > synchronization can add to CPU?
> >
> > I have never used VisualVM, I can try it sometime this week. I am
> assuming
> > it will work with Websphere 6.1
> >
> > Regards
> > Ravi
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
> > jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ravi,
> > >
> > > Just a stupid question. Are your beans extremely big? Since FacesBean
> > > doesn't do much locking/synchronizing (none if I'm correctly), the
> > > only reason I can imagine it to eat CPU cycles is because of its
> > > size...
> > >
> > > Also, is it possible for you to do a profiling run using VisualVM?
> > > I've been profiling Trinidad with VisualVM myself and maybe we can
> > > compare numbers... Using the same tool might make it easier to
> > > compare...
> > >
> > > /JK
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
> > > > I am thinking if that was the case, I would see high CPU in
> > > > java.util.HashMap instead of org.apache.faces.*
> > > >
> > > > If you disagree, please explain and I can try using HashTable to
> store
> > > data
> > > > and get fresh numbers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jakob Korherr <
> > jakob.korh...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Maybe it happens when accessing the value from the Map with
> > > >> "#{bean.get['memid']}", because the Map is not properly
> synchronized,
> > > thus
> > > >> its internal structure is broken and thus it is running in infinite
> > > loops.
> > > >>
> > > >> Are your resources properly synchronized?
> > > >>
> > > >> Just a guess in the blue...
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Jakob Korherr
> > > >>
> > > >> 2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Another thing, most of our EL expressions are one of the following
> > > types
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "#{bean.active}"
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > "#{bean.get['memid']}"
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Parsing of these expressions probably happens within
> > > org.apache.myfaces.*
> > > >> > classes. These are fairly basic EL expressions and should not be
> > > taking
> > > >> > much
> > > >> > time. We know, the final getter method is not taking much time.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Do you know if the page (and EL expressions) are parsed each time
> a
> > > page
> > > >> is
> > > >> > rendered? If pages are parsed only once, then the parsing time
> > should
> > > >> also
> > > >> > be almost negligible.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Ravi
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Ravi <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Matthias,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If the issue is in bean, it should show up in my analysis. Also
> > > >> > getProperty
> > > >> > > is only 40% CPU, there is additional 45% cpu consumed by rest of
> > the
> > > >> > > trinidad classes totaling 85% total CPU, all within
> > > >> org.apache.myfaces.*
> > > >> > > classes
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Ravi
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Ravi,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> spoke to a guy that does performance testing/improvement for
> > Oracle
> > > >> > >> Applications. He said that there is some % CPU in Trindad but I
> > > would
> > > >> > >> not give it more them 20%. The heavy hitters is getClientId
> > (Blake
> > > -
> > > >> > >> see dev@ thread - is doing some optimization there).
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Now if getProperty is some el expression and expression is
> > > expensive
> > > >> > >> the problem is in expression not in Trinidad (perhaps that is
> the
> > > case
> > > >> > >> where you have el epression but beans behind it are not that
> > good).
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> -Matthias
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Ravi Kapoor <
> > > ravikapoor...@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>> Hi Jan-Kees,
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> You are right, the getProperty method is only taking 2K units.
> > > >> However
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > >>> I
> > > >> > >>> dig deeper, I find that most of the cumulative time is being
> > spent
> > > >> > within
> > > >> > >>> Trinidad classes. The final call to java getters consumes
> > > negligible
> > > >> > >>> time.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> I was unable to create thread structure like you showed
> (JProbe
> > > keeps
> > > >> > >>> getting crashed). But I took another screenshot that shows
> > almost
> > > >> > similar
> > > >> > >>> details you are looking for. It highlights the classes that
> are
> > > >> taking
> > > >> > >>> maximum time (cumulative time again) but as you can see, all
> the
> > > >> > classes
> > > >> > >>> are
> > > >> > >>> just trinidad classes.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbuQsSDG0X9_ZGhraHFwejJfNGRjcGNiN2hk&hl=en
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Regards,
> > > >> > >>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
> > > >> > >>> jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Hey Ravi,
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Looking at your JProbe screenshots for the second time, I
> think
> > > >> you're
> > > >> > >>>> misinterpreting the graphs (but I haven't used JProbe before,
> > so
> > > I
> > > >> > >>>> might be mistaking ;-) ).
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> In your first screenshot (upper left corner) you can see the
> > > total
> > > >> > >>>> time the getProperty method takes.
> > > >> > >>>> This includes its self time and the time taken by its
> children.
> > > Its
> > > >> > >>>> self time is 2781 and the child time is 29609.
> > > >> > >>>> A large portion (around 85%) comes from the getLocalProperty
> > and
> > > >> > >>>> ValueBinding.getValue methods.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> However, these two methods don't do much, since they delegate
> > to
> > > >> other
> > > >> > >>>> methods to do the real work. Maybe even invoking application
> > > code,
> > > >> > >>>> like managed beans.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Can you provide a more detailed call tree with more info
> about
> > > the
> > > >> > >>>> child methods that are invoked? I'm especially interested in
> > the
> > > >> > >>>> methods that are called by getLocalProperty and
> > > >> ValueBinding.getValue
> > > >> > >>>> and their children. I'm not that familiar with JProbe, but
> I'm
> > > sure
> > > >> it
> > > >> > >>>> supports something like a call tree
> > > >> > >>>> (
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.ej-technologies.com/products/jprofiler/images/whatsnew/exceptional_methods_calltree.png
> > > >> > >>>> ),
> > > >> > >>>> so you can see the problematic method.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Regards,
> > > >> > >>>> Jan-Kees
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> 2010/1/10 Ravi <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Matthias, I think websphere 6.1 does not support JSF 1.2. I
> > will
> > > >> > >>>>> doublecheck, let me know if this is incorrect. This mans I
> > > cannot
> > > >> try
> > > >> > >>>>> trinidad version 1.2.12
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> I will try out 1.0.11 release, but that is a minor release
> > > update
> > > >> and
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > >>>>> seriously doubt if it will fix such a performance issue.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> What other options do we have? Is there a way we can get
> > > somebody
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>> familiar
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> with trinidad architecture/code to look at this issue? This
> > can
> > > >> even
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > >>>>> a
> > > >> > >>>>> paid assignment.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Regards
> > > >> > >>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Hello Ravi,
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> I wonder what our last release for JSF 1.1 (1.0.11) does?
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Not sure, perhaps you may also try the JSF 1.2 version ?
> > > (1.2.12)
> > > >> > >>>>>> The JSF 1.2 version is the one that is best supported,
> these
> > > days.
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Trinidad 2.0 is now in alpha stage, and I can understand
> that
> > > you
> > > >> > >>>>>> don't want to update on that version, now
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Ravi <
> > ravikapoor...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> Scott, we do not have CPUs available. The time trinidad is
> > > >> > consuming
> > > >> > >>>>>>> is
> > > >> > >>>>>>> supposed to be doing some other work. Hence this is
> costing
> > us
> > > >> real
> > > >> > >>>>>>> dollars
> > > >> > >>>>>>> and hence our time and effort to resolve this.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> This is not initial hit of page. I always ignore the first
> > hit
> > > on
> > > >> > all
> > > >> > >>>>>>> pages,
> > > >> > >>>>>>> I am only measuring CPU from 2nd hit onwards.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> I don't know. I'm of the camp that if the CPU time is
> > > >> available,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> use
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> it. That said, is this load consistant or are you just
> > > testing
> > > >> an
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> initial hit of each page.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Ravi <
> ravikapoor...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Now that I am reading your message again, I do want to
> > > answer
> > > >> > your
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> questions in detail. First I agree reflection is cheap,
> > that
> > > is
> > > >> > why
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> reflection is not my concern. Time being spent in
> > reflection
> > > is
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> almost negligible compared to time being spent in
> trinidad
> > > >> > classes.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Secondly IO and locking etc contribute to clock time but
> > not
> > > to
> > > >> > CPU
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> time. e.g. for IO, the thread may be in a wait state
> > waiting
> > > >> for
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> data to arrive. In this case, the clock keeps ticking
> but
> > > such
> > > >> a
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> wait does not need CPU. My numbers are specifically CPU
> > > time.
> > > >> > Which
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> means trinidad is not waiting but executing CPU
> > > instructions.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> This is why the user load is also irrelevant (high load
> > > leads
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> adding clock time but not to CPU time). But since you
> > asked,
> > > to
> > > >> > get
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> these numbers, I am not doing a load testing. I am
> simply
> > > >> loading
> > > >> > 4
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> screens 4 times in order (total 16 screens).
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Jan-Kees van Andel wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but I doubt the mailing list supports
> > > >> attachments.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you could provide a link to some image hosting
> > site?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> My first thought, reflection is darn cheap, especially
> > > since
> > > >> > Java
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> 5
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> and even more since Java 6. I'm no IBM JVM specialist,
> > but
> > > I
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> think there are major differences with HotSpot...
> > Compared
> > > >> with
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> SQL
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> queries, backend transactions, web service calls, etc.
> > > >> > reflective
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> method invocations really don't make a difference.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Having said that, what kind of application are you
> > testing?
> > > >> Does
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> application have any I/O, locking or other expensive things
> > that
> > > >> may
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> be the cause of the CPU-time imbalance?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Also, what kind of load are you simulating on your
> > > >> application?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Long
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> sessions with not much users? Lots of short sessions?
> > > >> > Hyperactive
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> users without any pauses?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> /JK
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Ps. How did you configure your profiler? Sampling or
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> tracing/instrumentation? Although I don't think it
> makes
> > a
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> difference
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> in this case, sampling is less accurate...
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> 2010/1/8 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> The actual call to getter method is only using 2% CPU.
> > > Rest
> > > >> 38%
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> being
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> used within trinidad classes.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am attaching two screenshots to give you more
> details.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> In first screenshot, you can see at the top left
> corner,
> > > >> total
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> CPU
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> units
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> taken by getProperty are 32391
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> getProperty calls javax.faces.el.ValueBinding.getValue
> > > which
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.myfaces.el.PropertyResolverImpl.getValue
> > which
> > > >> calls
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.myfaces.el.PropertyResolverImpl.getProperty
> > > which
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> In second screenshot you can see that Method.invoke is
> > > using
> > > >> > only
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1781 units
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> of CPU. Rest of the time is being spent within
> trinidad
> > > >> > classes.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Does this help? Also the rest of trinidad using 45%
> CPU
> > > usage
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> also highly
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> concerning.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>> <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible that the getProperty indirectly
> invokes
> > > some
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> expensive
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> computation? For example, do you have lots of logic
> > > inside
> > > >> > your
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> getters?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jan-Kees
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/1/8 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the details:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Server: Websphere 6.1
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trinidad version: 1.0.7 (We cant upgrade to 2.0
> until
> > > we
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> websphere
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which will happen in due course. Even then if this
> > issue
> > > >> has
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> been
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed, the problem may exist in 2.0 as well.)
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OS: Windows (Even though I am measuring numbers on
> > > windows
> > > >> > but
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> do not
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> think this is OS specific)
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mat...@apache.org>wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Ravi,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some more background would be good, e.g. what
> version
> > > of
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trinidad etc.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ravi Kapoor
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ravikapoor...@gmail.com
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anybody done performance tests on trinidad
> > > >> application.
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application and it appears that it is taking
> 80-90%
> > of
> > > >> CPU
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> application, thus killing performance.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We ran load tests and our CPU went to 100% usage.
> At
> > > this
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point we
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much time was being taken by each
> class/method.
> > > Here
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting figures:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU usage by all Trinidad + myfaces classes =
> 80-90%
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myfaces CPU usage (without trinidad) = 8% (which
> > > implies
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trinidad is
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 70-80% of CPU)
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total time taken by one method
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > (org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.bean.FacesBeanImpl.getProperty)
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40%
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anybody confirm that they have seen this
> > behavior?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or if somebody can confirm that this does not
> happen
> > > in
> > > >> > their
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, that should help too.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ravi
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
