Performance issue between WL 5.1 and WL 6.0

Hello all and thank you in advance,
We're in the process of evaluating Weblogic 6.0 and have noticed a
considerable difference in server response times from Weblogic
5.1(sp9). Testing with a light load, 5 to 20 threads, our average
response
time has doubled when using Weblogic 6.0. We've done some reading about
the license limitation (5 connection limit) and tried taking numbers at
or below 5 threads, however it still seems that the response
times are 2 to 2.5 times slower.
We have not tried rebuilding using ejbc2.0 yet (however this is on the
list), and additionaly we are going to try another "fresh" install to
see what happeneds. Everything else we've done is pretty much by the
book.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or has Weblogic 6.0 been pigged out by
all of the new features.
Our system consist of multiple servlet, session beans, and entity beans
(bean managed persistance).
Any response is greatly appreciated.
Sean

Similar Messages

Performance Issues between WL 5.1 and WL 6.0

Hello all and thank you in advance,
We're in the process of evaluating Weblogic 6.0 and have noticed a considerable
difference in server response times from Weblogic 5.1(sp9). Testing with a light
load, 5 to 20 threads, our average response time has doubled when using Weblogic
6.0. We've done some reading about the license limitation (5 connection limit)
and tried taking numbers at or below 5 threads, however it still seems that the
response
times are 2 to 2.5 times slower. Does anyone know what the license limitation
of 5 connections means? Is it physical connections, 5 IP addresses ???
We have not tried rebuilding using ejbc2.0 yet (however this is on the list),
and additionaly we are going to try another "fresh" install to see what happeneds.
Everything else we've done is pretty much by the book.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or has Weblogic 6.0 been pigged out by all of
the new features.
Our system consist of multiple servlet, session beans, and entity beans (bean
managed persistance).
Any response is greatly appreciated.
Sean

Dimitri,
I believe that is correct, it is deployment unit which matters. I can't tell
you for sure since I have not tried to deploy exploded format in 6.x, yet.
.raja
"Dimitri Rakitine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Isn't it the same for WebLogic if you deploy your app in exploded form oras
an EAR as long as it is the same deployment unit?
If web-app and ejb components are separate deployment units thenperformance
will suffer because local RMI optimization will not be used when invokingEJBs
(calls will be by-value vs by-reference).
Raja Mukherjee <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there any reason, why you are deploying your application in the
expanded
format? As I understand in 6.0 if you deploy your application in .earfile
the class loader hierarchy works like (Simplified version)
System Class Loader
|
EJB Class Loader (JAR File)
|
Web Application Class Loader (WAR File)
If you deploy the same application with separate WAR and JAR file, your
class loader will look like
System Class Loader
| |
EJB Class Loader Web Application Class Loader
In general, I have seen 6.0 perform better than 5.1. But again, all my
6.0
deployments are EAR file. I would also cache all JNDI lookups in 6.0. In
5.1, I have only seen marginal gains, but in 6.0 gains are pretty big.
Hope this helps.
.raja
"Rich Llaca" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi Rob,
I've been working with Sean to try and figure out our problem. We
really
appreciate your comments and all the feedback we've been getting onthis.
Even though we haven't figured out our problem yet we've learned a lotjust
from everyone's comments.
Your question on deployment is one I've been meaning to ask. Here's
what
we're doing, at least what we've been initially doing.
First of all, our complete application is composed of:
1. servlets receiving routed http input requests,
2. session beans which handle requests from servlets,
3. BMP EJBs which provide the session beans with data and receive datato
make updates/inserts,
4. XML static files which are used along with output coming from thesession
beans to provide a set of output data for each request,
5. XSL files which are used with the output XML to generate the final
web
pages dynamically.
6. everything eventually is output by the handling servlet.
Since we're still in development mode we've been trying to put our
application under 6.0 (we're trying both sp1 and sp2) in expanded form.Our
application is setup under the following typical directory structure:
1. ".../OurDomain/applications/OurApplication".
2. In the OurApplication directory we have directories for our XML and
XSL
files.
3. In the "OurApplication/WEB-INF/web.xml and weblogic.xml" files wehave
the declaration for resources and servlets.
4. In "OurApplication/WEB-INF/lib" we have the jar files containing our
servlets and session beans.
5. Our BMP EJBs are in a seperate jar file. We had been precompiling(with
"ejbc") but now we're trying to let the server do the deploymentcompiling
at server startup.
So my question is; Are we doing something wrong that causing ourperformance
issues? Should we try to structure things differently? We've set things
where the servlets and session beans are basically structured like a
web
app
would be, things that would go into the ".war" file. Is this the right
way
to do this or since we really don't have any static html (all isgenerated
dynamically) should we step back and look at structuring things the waythey
might go into an ".ear" file?
Thanks Again,
Rich
"Rob Woollen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In general, WLS 6 performs much better than WLS 5.1. First off, make
sure you've installed SP1 (or preferably SP2) for 6.0. These service
packs improve the performance as well as fix bugs.
The most common 5.1-->6.0 performance problem relates to the changes
to
the classloaders.
How are you deploying your application in 6.0? You should deploy a
single EAR file that contains the servlet WARs and the EJB Jars. In
this case, we can optimize the servlet-->EJB calls.
If you deploy them as separate WAR and JAR files, the calls areslower
(call by value) since they are viewed as separate applications by the
server and use separate class loaders.
-- Rob
Sean Cloutier wrote:
Hello all and thank you in advance,
We're in the process of evaluating Weblogic 6.0 and have noticed a
considerable
difference in server response times from Weblogic 5.1(sp9).
Testing
with a light
load, 5 to 20 threads, our average response time has doubled when
using
Weblogic
6.0. We've done some reading about the license limitation (5
connection
limit)
and tried taking numbers at or below 5 threads, however it still
seems
that the
response
times are 2 to 2.5 times slower. Does anyone know what the licenselimitation
of 5 connections means? Is it physical connections, 5 IP addresses
We have not tried rebuilding using ejbc2.0 yet (however this is on
the
list),
and additionaly we are going to try another "fresh" install to see
what
happeneds.
Everything else we've done is pretty much by the book.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or has Weblogic 6.0 been pigged
out
by
all of
the new features.
Our system consist of multiple servlet, session beans, and entity
beans
(bean
managed persistance).
Any response is greatly appreciated.
Sean--
Coming Soon: Building J2EE Applications & BEA WebLogic Server
by Michael Girdley, Rob Woollen, and Sandra Emerson
http://learnweblogic.com
Dimitri

Performance considerations between a cross join and inner join

Hi there,
What's the performance difference and impact on running a cross-join based query against an inner join based query?
Regards and thanks

Before going to the performance issue - ensure you get the required data and not just some data shown.
Performance should be checked only between equivalent queries which produce same output but with different processing.
Are you sure you get same output in cross join as well as inner join?
If so pass on your different queries and then discuss with one is better.

E4200 firmware - 1. Your experiences? 2. Performance diffs. between 1.0.00 and 1.0.01?

I would like to hear from other E4200 owners regarding performance comparisons between the two E4200 firmwares.
Questions:
1. Is the new one any more reliable?
(I have not had any reliability issues with the original firmware which I am still using on my current E4200).
2. Does it perform better with one or the other (firmware)?
3. Any other observations you want to share regarding any differences in performance between the two.
Thanks in advance.
Hopefully this thread and the feedback it generates will help E4200 owners compare notes with one another.

Did you call tech support to figure out if your settings (channel etc.) could / should be adjusted?
Sorry it did not work for you yet, but as far as your comments are concerned, I think the following comparison tests shed some light on the reality of the performance of the two.
The E4200 crushed the Apple in the smallnetbuilder.com 'throughput vs. location' 2.4 GHz wireless tests, especially in anything but the closest two locations (look at the numbers for locations E and F):
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-charts/graph/58-2_4-ghz-dn/952-airport-extreme-base-sta...
Just posting this test link to add some perspective since people googling might stumble onto your comments and take them at face value.

Performance Issues with 10.6.7 and External USB Drives

I've had a few performance issues come up with the latest 10.6.7 that seem to be related to external USB drives. I have a 2TB USB drive tha I have my iMovie content on this drive and after 10.6.7 update, iMovie is almost unusable. Finder even seems slow when browsing files on this drive as well. It seems like any access to the drive is delayed in all applications. Before the update, the performance was acceptable, but now it almost unusable. Most of the files on this drive are large dv files.
Anyone else experience this?

Matt,
If you want help, please start your own thread here:
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1339&start=0
And if your previous thread you aren't getting sufficient help for your iPhone, post a new topic here:
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1139
You'll get a wider audience, and won't confuse the original poster. Performance issues can be caused by numerous issues as outlined in my FAQ*
http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
If every person who had a performance issue posted to this thread, we'd never find a solution for the initial poster. Let's isolate each case one by one. It is NOT necessarily the same issue, even if the symptoms are the same. There are numerous contributing factors at work with computers, and if we don't isolate them, we'll never get to the root cause.

Any known 'porting' issues between 8.2.2 and 9.0 ??

Hi all,
we are in the process of evaluating LS ES2 (9.0) and would like to know if there are any 'porting' issues between the two versions. Asked another way, are there any issues in deploying a 8.2.2. LCA onto 9.0 ?
Dan

8.2 LCA's will run fine in 9.0 if they are just deployed into it. But in 9.0 a new application model has been introduced, so in order to make changes to anything after you've migrated it you'll need to create an application and migrate your processes and resources into it. You may want to take a look at the Leveraging Legacy Solution document available online. Here's the link: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/livecycle/9.0/workbenchHelp/help.htm?content=leveragingLegacy. html .
Chris

Work around technique for imcompatibility issues between Firefox 6.0 and Avast Free Antivirus 6.0, esp "Unresponsive Scripts."

I am using Firefox 6.0, Avast Free Anti-Virus 6.0 and Windows XP.
I am experiencing slow/freezing web browsing after a recent upgrade to Firefox 6.0. Not all but on most occasions, I also get a warning from Avast of an "unresponsive script." I suspect there is a compatibility issue between these versions of Firefox and Avast--are they any short and/or long term solutions to this. I suppose I can disable the Script Blocker on Avast but that would defeat the purpose of having an anti-virus program.
Many thanks in advance.

I have had a similar problem with my system. I just recently (within a week of this post) built a brand new desktop. I installed Windows 7 64-bit Home and had a clean install, no problems. Using IE downloaded an anti-virus program, and then, because it was the latest version, downloaded and installed Firefox 4.0. As I began to search the internet for other programs to install after about maybe 10-15 minutes my computer crashes. Blank screen (yet monitor was still receiving a signal from computer) and completely frozen (couldn't even change the caps and num lock on keyboard). I thought I perhaps forgot to reboot after an update so I did a manual reboot and it started up fine.
When ever I got on the internet (still using firefox) it would crash after anywhere between 5-15 minutes. Since I've had good experience with FF in the past I thought it must be either the drivers or a hardware problem. So in-between crashes I updated all the drivers. Still had the same problem. Took the computer to a friend who knows more about computers than I do, made sure all the drivers were updated, same problem. We thought that it might be a hardware problem (bad video card, chipset, overheating issues, etc.), but after my friend played around with my computer for a day he found that when he didn't start FF at all it worked fine, even after watching a movie, or going through a playlist on Youtube.
At the time of this posting I'm going to try to uninstall FF 4.0 and download and install FF 3.6.16 which is currently on my laptop and works like a dream. Hopefully that will do the trick, because I love using FF and would hate to have to switch to another browser. Hopefully Mozilla will work out the kinks with FF 4 so I can continue to use it.
I apologize for the lengthy post. Any feedback would be appreciated, but is not necessary. I will try and post back after I try FF 3.16.6.

Performance Difference Between Dual 2.7 and Quad, and Logic Pro

I used to have a G5 DP 2.7 before it went bad and Apple offered me a Quad in exchange. I'd like to understand some details of the specs between these two computers and how they might translate with respect to running Logic Pro (which I'll get to in a minute)...
Listed below are the specs which I believe illustrate the significant differences between these two machines (this info is based on info gleaned from Macworld, since the specific specs of the DP 2.7 no longer appear on Apple's website):
Dual 2.7
(2x) 2.7 GHz, cache = 512K per processor, frontside bus speed = 1.35 GHz per processor
Quad
(4x) 2.5 GHz, cache = 2MB on-chip L2 per chip, frontside bus speed = 1.25 GHz per processor
So here's the link with Logic: it's become apparent of late that Logic Pro is not able to fully utilize the processing power of all 4 cores in the Quad. Reports are that performance tops out at 50% per processor, resulting in approx. 200% possible processing usage from the 4 cores in the Quad.
However, such a limitation in processor usage wasn't present in the DP 2.7.
So based on the information I've learned so far, it seems that the Quad and the DP 2.7 are almost equivalent in terms of processing power when running Logic Pro. Now, this is what I'm surmising, but, is this actually the case? At the end of the day, I'd like to know if the Quad indeed a more powerful computer than the DP 2.7 when running Logic Pro, or, did my exchange of DP 2.7 for the Quad constitute a "downgrade" of any proportion?

The only logical answer to Why Intels do and PPC don't is:
Apple want everybody to transition to their Intel boxes. The only way to do this is offer better performance in software tweaks for one system over the another, which begs the question what else will Apple do to software for PPC owners?
Having bought a Mac Pro, primerily for testing out certain software apz under Rosetta, I did a real time test between my 8GB RAM G5 Quad and my stock Mac Pro upgraded to 2GB RAM, batch processing 204 Canon 1DsMKII RAW files into 16-Bitt TIFFs. I put a thread on the Mac Pro forum here:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=627916&tstart=15
I so wanted my Quad to squash the Intel invaded Mac, but results speak for themselves. The Mac Pro flattened the G5 Quad by over 23 minutes (it worked out as 1.7 times faster than the G5Quad).
If that's how it performs with 2GB RAM it's gonna really fly when I max it out. So, for musicians, I would imagine with the Quad core support for Intel Macs in Logic 7.2.2 makes a fairly straight forward decision. . .buy a Mac Pro and sell your PowerMac. More time composing less time waiting for renders (never used music software so if it doesn't render your composition place whatever it does do into the 'renders' slot )
P.S I hated, really hated having to say the Mac Pro toasted my G5 Quad, I so wanted the Intel to fall flat on it's aluminium as$, but it didn't. It's a quick machine. A very quick machine which toasted my Quad in real time tests using a universal Pro app from a 3rd Party (who would have no incentive to dumb down the PPC version as they sell their product to Windows, PPC OS X and Intel OS X)

Is there a performance difference between Automation Plug-ins and the scripting system?

We currently have a tool that, through the scripting system, merges and hides layers by layer groups, exports them, and then moves to the next layer group. There is some custom logic and channel merging that occasionally occurs in the merging of an individual layer group. These operations are occuring through the scripting system (actually, through C# making direct function calls through Photoshop), and there are some images where these operations take ~30-40 minutes to complete on very large images.
Is there a performance difference between doing the actions in this way as opposed to having these actions occur in an automation plug-in?
Thanks,

Thanks for the reply. I ended up just benchmarking the current implementation that we are using (which goes through DOM from all indications, I wasn't the original author of the code) and found that accessing each layer was taking upwards of 300 ms. I benchmarked iterating through the layers with PIUGetInfoByIndexIndex (in the Getter automation plug-in) and found that the first layer took ~300 ms, but the rest took ~1 ms. With that information, I decided that it was worthwhile rewriting the functionality in an Automation plug-in.

Weird issues between iPhone Camera Roll and iPhoto?!?!?

I just noticed when opening Photos and then my Camera Roll of pics taken with my 3G that there is a large black irregular shape area covering the top 2 rows of pics and part of the third row as well. I have exited and returned to the app, shut down and restarted my iPhone and no change. If I tap in the black area (don't know what I'm tapping) it will bring up whatever photo is actually there, but there is no way to see it in the thumbnail preview screen because of the black overlay. If I connect the iPhone to my Macbook and open iPhoto, it seems to see that there are photos in my Camera Roll, but they are all blank and iPhoto thinks there are 32 photos there but there is not that many because I have deleted some of them :-O Clicking on a blank photo does not bring up the actual photo, just nothing happens.
So, to try and remedy this I manually deleted all the photos from my Camera Roll on the iPhone, so there were NO PHOTOS in the Camera Roll and then did a sync with my MacBook. iPhoto still thinks there are 32 photos and they are all blank placeholders like before! I tried to "import all" just to see what would happen and 4 were readable and the rest were "unreadable files". I said to delete all the photos after importing but it still lists 32 photos there. Even when the iPhone is disconnected, the iPhone icon stays in iPhoto and I have to manually unmount it. So, there is total disconnect between what is actually on my Camera Roll on the iPhone and what is being seen by iPhoto. It's as though iPhoto is stuck in a particular point in time and can't get rid of some cache or memory of a previous iPhone Camera Roll state. Before updating to OS 3.0, whenever I unplugged the iPhone after a sync, the icon would disappear as a mounted drive in iPhoto so that has changed as well.
I have no idea where to even begin trying to fix this problem. I'm using iPhoto 7.1.5 and not sure whether this is an iPhoto problem or iPhone problem or both?!?! Any feedback would be extremely appreciated!
Message was edited by: Joshua Morganstein

I'm having a similar issues. Every program on my Mac that is capable of acquiring images from a digital camera (iPhoto, Graphics Converter, Image Capture, etc.) thinks that my iPhone is mounted and that there are 77 pictures to download. It doesn't matter whether the phone is actually connected to the computer or not. I've even restored the iPhone to the factory state and it makes no difference. Thus, I believe the problem to be on the Mac itself. I don't know the details on how it works (could anyone enlighten me?) but I'm very surprised that multiple programs are having the same issue. Obviously, there is some layer that is between the actual device and the programs that use the device. That layer must be corrupted. But what is it, where is it, and how can I fix it?

Performance difference between java.beans.Expression and Java Reflection

What is the Performance difference between using java.beans.Expression class and Java Reflection classes like Class,Method ??

negligible

Compatibiity issues between Microsoft Office 2013 and Epsom Workforce 1100 Wide Format Printer

I just purchased a new Pavilion 23 HP computer with Windows 8 Operating System and Office 2013. I bought an Epson Workforce 1100 Wide Format printer several years ago. Upon installing it on my new computer, I noticed it was for operating systems from 2000
to 7 and did not include Windows 8. I downloaded the recommended driver for Windows 8. My computer recognizes the printer and will print pictures, web-articles, etc. but will not print any text from any of the Office 2013 documents. Can you help me?

Hi,
I have a couple of questions about the issue:
1. Did the print task show in the status bar when you use Office2013 to print?
2. Did you try to print by using the Notepad?
3. Did you get some error messages?
If we cloud not print from the Notepad, it seems a
compatibility issues between Windows8 and print driver. I recommend you post the issue to Windows 8 forum or connect Epson support.
Then，we also cloud upgrade all the latest Windows 8 and Office 2013 patches to test.
Regards,
George Zhao
TechNet Community Support

Compatibility issues between solaris 10 patches and Weblogic server 9.2

Is there any documentation about possible incompatibility between certain solaris patches and Weblogic server?

Hi,
Can you post the output of below commands from your OS?
uname -a
getconf LONG_BIT
Do you want to download and install 64-bit WLS 9.2 on your OS?
- - Tarun

How can I resolve bluetooth connectivity issues between my iPhone 4S and my car?

My iPhone contantly unpairs from my car's bluetooth while I'm on a call. The phone is still working and I can continue the conversation if I hold it, but that is illegal in New Jersey. I have tried re-setting the iPhone, and re-pairing it with the car's bluetooth, but nothing has worked. My car (Lexus 350RX, 2012) is up to date with firmware. My daughter has the same issue with her iPhone 4S and her Honda Pilot. I may have to get a Samsum Galaxy if this issue is not resolved.

either export it as a pdf if you dont need to work in it or if you do use an app called numbers from apple it supports excel as far as i know

Performance issue due to column formula and filters

Hi,
I am facing strange issue with performance for my OBIEE reports. I have two sets of reports Static and Dynamic. Both runs against same tables. The only difference between these reports is that the Static reports would run against all the data for given aggregation level e.g. Year, Month, Date and so on. Where as for Dynamic one I have range prompts to filter data. Other difference is that I have a column formula for one of the column in the Dynamic report, which is nothing but Go URL to show another page with certain parameters.
The static report takes around 14-15 Seconds where as the Dynamic one takes around 3.5 min. The amount of data and range is same here. From the logs I could see that for the Static reports, i.e. reports without filters it applys group by at SQL level where as it is not doing so for the dynamic one. Is this expected ?
Second issue is, even if I say remove the filters and just have report with column formula in one and no formula in other there is significant time difference in the processing at Presentation service layer. Again this is taken from the log. it takes 8 second to get data from DB but shows almost 218 Seconds as response time at Presentation layer.
Below are conceptual details about table and reports -
Table 1 (It is date dimension) : Date_Dim
DateCode Date
Day Number
MonthCode Varchar2
YearCode Varchar2
Table 2 (It is aggregate table at year level) : Year_Aggr
DateCode Date (FK to Table1 above)
Measure1
Measure2
Measure3
Measure4
Measure5
Report 1
Date_Dim.YearCode | Year_Aggr.Measure1 | Year_Aggr.Measure2 | Year_Aggr.Measure3 | Year_Aggr.Measure4
Report 2
Dashboard Filter : Dimension1 | Dimension2 | Year Start | Year End |
Date_Dim.YearCode | Year_Aggr.Measure1 | Year_Aggr.Measure2 | Year_Aggr.Measure3 | Year_Aggr.Measure4
Column formula for Date_Dim.YearCode is something like :
'<a href="saw.dll?Dashboard&PortalPath=somepath and parameters target=_self>' || Date Dim"."YearCode" || '</a">'
Filters :
Dimension1 is prompted...
Dimension2 is prompted...
cast("Date Dim"."YearCode" as Int) is greater than or equal to @{Start_Year}
cast("Date Dim"."YearCode" as Int) is greater than or equal to @{End_Year}
Note : I need to apply cast to int as column is varchar2, legacy problem.+
How can I fix this? Am I missing something? In the result of report2 the DB SQL doesn't show the year in where thought it is displayed in the logical sql.
Let me know if anybody had faced this and have fixed. Or suggetion to make changes to fix this.
Thannks,
Ritesh</a>

Hi Ritesh,
I think you right about the root cause of your problem. The first request does the group by in the database which returns fewer records to the BI Server for processing. The second request does not do the group by and sends significantly more records back to the BI server forcing it to do the group by. Compound that with the fact that pivot table views are relatively expensive computationally and that explains the difference between the execution times.
Assuming that the execution time of the first report is satisfactory, I would recommend you try to experiment with a few settings to see if you can get the second report to do the group by in the database.
Are the two filters identical except for the following conditions?
cast("Date Dim"."YearCode" as Int) is greater than or equal to @{Start_Year}
cast("Date Dim"."YearCode" as Int) is greater than or equal to @{End_Year}
Best regards,
-Joe

Performance issue between WL 5.1 and WL 6.0

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for