Ravi,
To your question: Can you explain little bit how lack of synchronization can
add to CPU?
I don't know exactly, but maybe it is possible that the internal structure
of a Map (e.g. HashMap) can be destroyed when there are multiple change
operations (put, remove, clear) at the same time, because of lack of
synchronization. But that's really just a guess!
Regards,
Jakob
2010/1/11 Ravi Kapoor <ravikapoor...@gmail.com>
> Jakob,
>
> I did install VisualVM but it is not capturing org.apache.* classes or
> com.mycompany.* classes. I did not find a setting on how to enable
> capturing
> data for all the classes I want. Can you tell me where to specity the
> packages for which I want to capture CPU usage?
>
> Vinay
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:05 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
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >> > >>>>>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
