that looks very strange to me. We have also a very large app here and we dont notice a difference So i am very curious what is happening at your place then. Are you sure for example that the pages are serializable ? That we don't have constantly exceptions?
johan On 9/10/07, Alex Objelean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Maybe the profiling was not a perfect one. But still, I have to give up > using > SecondSessionLevelStore just because the responsiveness of the application > is very slow. > > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > > > invocation count 1?? > > > > So you only do 1 request and you profile that? > > thats not a good test. You have to do plenty and multiply on the same > > time > > (10 for 100 request or something like that) > > to really see the difference. (and have a warm up phase) > > > > johan > > > > > > > > On 9/10/07, Alex Objelean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Matej, I must disagree with you regarding performance issues of the > >> SecondLevelSessionStore. I've reverted the Application#newSessionStore > to > >> HttpSessionStore and this significantly improved the application > overall > >> performance. Maybe this is not so obvious for small applications, but > >> when > >> it is about a large one - things changes. > >> > >> Below, you will find attached two images. The first one is a profiling > of > >> an > >> action when working with HttpSessionStore, the second one is a > profiling > >> for > >> the same action when using SecondSessionLevelStore. The difference is > >> huge: > >> 593ms vs 174420ms. I cannot explain what exactly is going on, but I've > >> noticed that by switching from default SecondLevelSessionStore to the > >> HttpSessionStore improved a lot the responsiveness of the application. > >> > >> Alex. > >> > >> http://www.nabble.com/file/p12588790/HttpSessionStore.jpg > >> http://www.nabble.com/file/p12588790/SecondSessionLevelStore.jpg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > >> > > >> > You can revert to httpsessionstore by changing > >> > Application.newSessionStore method. But that's not recommended. What > >> > are your performance problems? I doubt it is caused by the session > >> > store. > >> > > >> > -Matej > >> > > >> > On 9/7/07, jamieballing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> We are trying to do some performance troubleshooting and want to > >> disable > >> >> the > >> >> second level page cache. > >> >> > >> >> Is there any way to do this? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Jamie > >> >> -- > >> >> View this message in context: > >> >> > >> > http://www.nabble.com/Disable-the-SecondLevelPageCache--tf4403977.html#a12563895 > >> >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> 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] > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/Disable-the-SecondLevelPageCache--tf4403977.html#a12588790 > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Disable-the-SecondLevelPageCache--tf4403977.html#a12589190 > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
