Performance of EDN compared to JMS/AQ

Hi All,
We are using SOA Suite 11g Event Delivery Network for one of the projects to raise events from different integration points in the overall architecture. The payload size is up to 5 MB. As of now, things are working fine but we are not sure about the performance issues what we might encounter.
Are there any known performace issues say with 30000 or 4000 messages each with 5 MB size. Will EDN be able to support this?
What we are looking for is a peformance comparison of EDN with JMS and AQ.
Any pointer will be helpful.
Thanks,
Akash

Generally speaking: everything that can be done on the backend (e.g. BI system) is good for both WAD and VC performance. As soon as you try to put filters, aggregations, transformations, joins or sorting on the frontend (e.g. by using the filter-object in VC), it significantly slows down the VC application, as filtering happens then on the client.
VC tends to seduce modelers to use exactly all those featurs in the model, while WAD does not allow you to use that, you must go in the Query (which means backend) and change it. A good VC modeler changes the queries in the backend correspondingly.
Number of records: WAD controls automatically limit the number of records displayed at once (though limit is adjustable and can be blown up). VC has also a limit of e.g. 500 records for a table, but you can blow that up too. You must be aware that this leads to a lot of data transferred from backend to client -> performance issue.
Given those criteria I would expect the performance of both WAD and VC in a similar range, as most of the performance intensive work happens on the backend. And if the backend is the same, so is then the most critical performance.
One issue is different: VC supports client side sorting, that means you do not have a roundtrip anymore to the backend, while WAD does it. Drawback: when you use totals in your query, WAD sorts them correctly, while VC messes them up.

Similar Messages

ABAP Trial performance really SLOW compared with IDES 4.7 (really fast)

Hi all
just a quick question
I'm running on an XP Virtual machine the full IDES V4.7 and performance is really GOOD. Transactions etc etc.
Now on an identically configfured Virtual machine with similar disks etc the APAP trial Preview runs FAR WORSE and slower. OK I know it's a newer release but there's no transactional stuff in it. The IDES uses around 45 - 60 GB disk soace BTW
The only difference I can see that might make a huge difference is the IDES uses the ORACLE DB system wheras the ABAP preview uses MAXDB DB system.
Incidentally for running VM's ALWAYS allocate the FULL virtual disk size you want when creating the VM. If you let the disks "grow" as in a normal VM this has horrendous implications for database type of applications.
Both VM's are running as 2GB RAM XP systems on a Host Windows 7 X-64 4GB machine.
Any Guru out there who might be able to explain the great IDES performance compared with the ABAP trial preview.
(Both VM's are run individually -- not at the same time).
Cheers
jimbo

Hi James,
I have the exact setup as you do (701 V3). Have you run SGEN? I also find that my performance is quite slow at first (presumable while the disk is allocating to memory) but it then speeds up quite quickly. Also, might help if you upgrade your ram if your planning on running both VM's at once. I'm currently allocating 3GB to my VM.
Transactions ST02 & ST06 may help you to trouble shoot your performance issues. Use RZ10 to alter your system parameters (assume you know this already).
Edited by: Paul Thomson on Mar 13, 2010 4:20 PM

CBO Performing Bad as compared to RBO any suggestions

Hi
I am migrating from RBO to CBO. I have taken the Stats on the schema tables and indexes. The response times in CBO are really Bad as compared to RBO. Can any one suggest where should I Start to make the performance better.
Thanks

In order to get a list of name and values of optimizer parameters that your session is using you can use 10053 event. here is an example;
HR on 25/03/2006 19:55:33 at XE > alter session set events ‘10053 trace name on
text forever, level 1′;
Session altered.
HR on 25/03/2006 19:55:51 at XE > SELECT TO_CHAR(sysdate,’DD-MON-YY HH24:MI:SS’)
”Start” FROM dual;
Start
25-MAR-06 19:55:59
1 row selected.
HR on 25/03/2006 19:55:59 at XE > ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS ‘10053 TRACE NAME CONTEXT OFF’;
The file at User_Dump_Dest folder in your Os with .trc extention will be created.
Hope this helps, kind regards.
Tonguç

Performance question when compare date with date or char with char

Hello from Germany (Frankfurt) !
I am working on Oracle 9.2.0.8.0
and have to solve following problem:
Comparison of a date and char fields.
Now two ways to do it.
Either I compare char with char and convert date to char,
or I compare date with date and convert char to date.
Now the performace question. Which operation takes more effort for the database?
So why not to try and to see the results?
First create table:
CREATE TABLE TEST (
char_date VARCHAR2(8),
real_date DATE
NOLOGGING;
Then insert 1.000.000 rows
BEGIN
for x in 1..1000000
loop
insert into test (char_date, real_date) VALUES('19990101', TO_DATE('2006.01.01', 'YYYY.MM.DD'));
end loop;
COMMIT;
END;
Collect statistics
EXEC dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('TESTER', 'TEST');
Now run some selects for date to char conversion:
Elapsed: 00:00:00.00
SQL> select * from test t where TO_DATE(char_date, 'YYYYMMDD') > real_date;
no rows selected
Elapsed: 00:00:03.02
SQL> select * from test t where TO_DATE(char_date, 'YYYYMMDD') > real_date;
no rows selected
And some selects for char to date conversion:
Elapsed: 00:00:03.02
SQL> select * from test t where char_date > TO_CHAR(real_date, 'YYYYMMDD');
no rows selected
Elapsed: 00:00:02.05
SQL> select * from test t where char_date > TO_CHAR(real_date, 'YYYYMMDD');
no rows selected
Elapsed: 00:00:02.05
SQL>
As you see when I compare char with char and convert date to char it seems to be faster (almost 1 second)
Is the test correct?
I still not sure, what gets better performance...
Any idea?
Thanks!

Depends on whether you want the right results or not.
Why don't you run the following two queries and see if the difference in results tells you anything?:
with t as (select to_date('01/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') date_col from dual
           union all
           select to_date('02/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual
           union all
           select to_date('03/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual
           union all
           select to_date('03/03/2006', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual)
select *
from   t
where date_col < to_date('04/03/2006', 'dd/mm/yyyy');
with t as (select to_date('01/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') date_col from dual
           union all
           select to_date('02/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual
           union all
           select to_date('03/02/2007', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual
           union all
           select to_date('03/03/2006', 'dd/mm/yyyy') from dual)
select *
from   t
where to_char(date_col) < '04/03/2006';

Performance between MQ and MQ JMS

Hi! I now MqSeries is not the subject of this newsgroup, but, as soon as,
I'm using Weblogic to access MQ JMS queue, I'd like to now the opinion of
other people about performance in the following environment.
Our test program runs MQ Series 5.2 and BEA Weblogic 6.1sp2 on Solaris 2.8
over a E3500(4 cpus@400MHz, 3Gbytes of core memory). The application uses
the JMS API.
Tests showed that:
1.it takes about 150msec for a single thread to read a message from a MQ
Series queue in transactional context (using XA interface)
2.when using 5 threads to read the same queue, each thread takes about
400msec to read a message instead of keeping about the same 150msec
3.for a non-transactional read, a single thread is capable of reading a
message in about 50msec and the 5 thread version, in 70msec (still not
scalling up but not as bad as the transactional version).
Monitoring MQ using strmqtrc (MQ trace) at API level, we could see that
between xa_start and MQGET call it took about 300msec (using the 5 thread
version), apparently doing nothing.
CPU and I/O seems not to be a problem, at least as far as we could monitor.
Please see attached logs. The first log is the MQ trace file. The other one
is the app log which shows, for each thread, the time difference between one
message and the previous one to the same thread.
For instance
0milli (Thread-0)->Starting transaction <-before begin
transaction
1milli (Thread-0)->Waiting for message <-after begin tran,
before read queue
553milli (Thread-0)->Got incoming msg <-after read
1milli (Thread-0)->Transaction committing <-before commit
transaction
10milli (Thread-0)->Message processing completed. <-after commit
Are these figures the expected values for this hardware/software
configuration?
Regards.
[weblogic_ispb_20020123_163106.txt]
[trace.zip]

Make sure you are using the lwp thread library on Solaris 8 (put
/usr/lib/lwp FIRST in LD_LIBRARY_PATH - something like that).
I didn't look too closely at your complete post.
Mike
"Roberto Castro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi! I now MqSeries is not the subject of this newsgroup, but, as soon as,
I'm using Weblogic to access MQ JMS queue, I'd like to now the opinion of
other people about performance in the following environment.
Our test program runs MQ Series 5.2 and BEA Weblogic 6.1sp2 on Solaris 2.8
over a E3500(4 cpus@400MHz, 3Gbytes of core memory). The application uses
the JMS API.
Tests showed that:
1.it takes about 150msec for a single thread to read a message from a MQ
Series queue in transactional context (using XA interface)
2.when using 5 threads to read the same queue, each thread takes about
400msec to read a message instead of keeping about the same 150msec
3.for a non-transactional read, a single thread is capable of reading a
message in about 50msec and the 5 thread version, in 70msec (still not
scalling up but not as bad as the transactional version).
Monitoring MQ using strmqtrc (MQ trace) at API level, we could see that
between xa_start and MQGET call it took about 300msec (using the 5 thread
version), apparently doing nothing.
CPU and I/O seems not to be a problem, at least as far as we couldmonitor.
>
Please see attached logs. The first log is the MQ trace file. The otherone
is the app log which shows, for each thread, the time difference betweenone
message and the previous one to the same thread.
For instance
0milli (Thread-0)->Starting transaction <-before begin
transaction
1milli (Thread-0)->Waiting for message <-after begin tran,
before read queue
553milli (Thread-0)->Got incoming msg <-after read
1milli (Thread-0)->Transaction committing <-before commit
transaction
10milli (Thread-0)->Message processing completed. <-after commit
Are these figures the expected values for this hardware/software
configuration?
Regards.

CProjects 4.0 performance - questionaire to compare implementations

Hi All,
Just looking to get a comparison of performance of 4.0 installations. In my company, it is not going very well and if we don't see a major performance boost soon, I don't see that anyone will every use this tool. So, I have a simple list of activities to perform, just looking to get feedback from other 4.0 installations to see what the average times are for each of these activities - as a set of sample activities. I have posted in this also my avg. response times from the system. in [seconds]. We have done extensive Network and Server analysis and can really only link the slow performance back to the application itself... We are on SP9 currently.
Note: Our standard project template has about 290 tasks - this makes a major difference when changing information in the table view fully expanded - a typical way of working with the tool.
1.) Click on project from cProjects Project Dashboard, time how long from click until project is open [4.3s]
2.) Select the 'Project Element' (triangle) and click on the 'Expand Subtree' icon, time from click until it is fully expanded [4.6s]
3.) Once Tree is expanded, click on 'Table' view, time how long until Table View is completely loaded [8.5s]
4.) Change a role for a task and select 'TPL/System' from list, time how long it takes from the time you select the drop down until the time the system applies the Role. (Try this with a role that has staffing) [8.1s]
5.) Enter a start date (5a), hit enter and time how long it takes for the system to process it, do the same for a finish date (5b) [52s/50s]
6.) In the Table View still, select the side scroll bar and scroll (select and slide the scroll bar) to the bottom of the table, time how long it takes for the system to process the request. [8.4s]
7.) Click on the Gantt Chart (while in Table View and tree expanded), time how long until the Gantt Chart is completely loaded [37s]
8.) In Gantt Chart, select a task (F55 PCIS) and move the bar over 3 days and release, time how long it takes from the time you release to the time the system is completed processing [16s]
9.) Go Back to Detail View and select a task, from basic data, change the Status from Released to In Process, time how long it takes for the system to finish processing [9.8s]
10.) Go to the documents tab, create a new document and use the attached file in this email to attach. Put 'Test' in for description and time how long it takes for the system to finish processing the attachment [9.5s]
11.) Under Resources Tab, select a Role, select the 'Staffing' tab. put a resource number (any) into the resource field and click 'Staff', time how long it takes to process the staffing [4.8s]

> I made a report zreport_2 & executed both of them in background simultaneously to compare the time
this was really no good idea.
If you insert anything to the database, then you get a dump, if you try to times the same.
Even if you don't change anything then the parallel processing will not show anything the only try to get the resources.
You must execute them onne by one.
Run traces of both executions, execute every version at least three times (first one more expensive, second and third similar otherwise repeat)
SQL trace:
/people/siegfried.boes/blog/2007/09/05/the-sql-trace-st05-150-quick-and-easy
SE30
/people/siegfried.boes/blog/2007/11/13/the-abap-runtime-trace-se30--quick-and-easy
The SE30 shows everything what was going on, the SQL trace only the db part.
Check the summary by SQL statements, this is small, and youi can compare both executions by hand.
The SE30 hitlist is large, but there is a tool to compare then, see here:
Z_SE30_COMPARE
/people/siegfried.boes/blog/2008/01/15/a-tool-to-compare-runtime-measurements-zse30compare
Siegfried

Slow performance with custom comparator (AdvancedDataGrid sorting)

I'm using Flex 3.4.
I have an advancedDataGrid. Have 2 columns with numbers as data.
For one column, I do not set any custom comparator function.
For the other column, I set a custom comparator function which is exactly the same as the default one used by Flex. (The private function SortField.numericCompare).
For both columns, I set the same data - 3000 Rows with values either 0 or 1.
When i sort on column1 (the one with custom comparator), the sorting is much slower than on column2 (default Flex comparator).
I went through the AdvancedDataGrid/SortField source codes but could not see why this could be happening as the comparator functions are the same in both cases.
Also, I checked out this bug -
http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/SDK-13118
But shouldn't this be applicable to both custom and default sorting?
Can anyone help me out?

This is the function that i have : (same as the SortField numericCompare function which is the default function which is used if no customCompare is specified.)
        public function numCompare(a:Object, b:Object):int {
            var fa:Number;
            try {
                fa = _name == null ? Number(a) : Number(a[_name]);
            } catch (error:Error) {
            var fb:Number;
            try {
                fb = _name == null ? Number(b) : Number(b[_name]);
            } catch (error:Error) {
            return ObjectUtil.numericCompare(fa, fb);
As per bug, the performance should be slow for lots of items that have same value. But, it should be the same for both the custom compare and the default compare as the custom compare function I'm using is the same as what is used for Flex.

Performance gain 7800 compared to 6600 card

Hi,
It seems that some people here have upgraded from the 6600 card to the 7800 card. I would like to know about the performance gain using Aperture 1.5 compared to the 6600 card.
Is is worthwhile to upgrade the card or is it better to wait for the announced (rumoured?) x1900 g5 edition? Let's assume that the x1900 g5 arrives of course.
It looks like welovemacs.com is selling the 7800 cards. That seems like a more stable option then buying one of the reflashed cards.
Some info on how the 6600 card performs:
-D2x nef images: sliders and cursor are not close to real-time.Some sliders like shadow-highlight tool are very slow.
-D70 nef images: sliders still not real-time, but usable.
Previews are all turned off
Jochem

We're talking about performance now (visible FPS), not tearing. In fact, I hadn't witnessed any perceptible tearing until I turned off VSync, and with SNA enabled I still couldn't watch 1080p without some lag. This is all with the environment variable you mentioned.
Everyone I know with a SandyBridge GPU has perfect stability and performance- I'm sure you're having an amazing time with it, SNA or not. The premise of this post is that even the previous generation can play 1080p videos and run GNOME Shell smoother than silk. :\ Unfortunately, it seems Intel on Linux hasn't had as much attention with Ironlake. I really don't want to shell out even more money for an Ivy Bridge laptop this year, but I may just end up doing that if the situation doesn't improve. It was a big letdown considering Intel's amazing support in the past.
I guess it's really not too bad, but as a Multimedia Designer, I need my desktop compositing to be totally slick, on principle. I figured an i5 with higher specs than my old laptop would be enough. Oh well, I guess I can't always have my GNOME and eat it. I will continue to investigate and maybe get in contact with the mailinglist.
UPDATE: Tried to use JHBuild with no success. Aside from the not-so-necessary packages that needed Python2, there are some utterly necessary packages that I just couldn't build due to unrelated build errors. I don't even think a GNOME developer could make out how to fix them very easily, so I'm gonna' give up on that road for the moment. I'm going to see if there's a way to upgrade just gnome-shell, mutter, and clutter through the AUR.
Last edited by ScionicSpectre (2012-02-16 05:39:28)

Webi Report Performance issue as compared with backaend SAP BW as

Hi
We are having Backend as SAP BW.
Dashboard and Webi reports are created with Backend SAP BW.
i.e thru Universe on top of Bex query and then webi report and then dashboard thru live office.
My point is that when we have created webi reprts with date range as parameter(sometimes as mandatory variable which comes as prompt in webi) or sometimes taking L 01 Calender date from Bex and creating a prompt in webi, we are facing that reports are taking lot of time to open. 5 minutes 10 minutes and sometimes 22 minutes to open.
This type of problem never ocurred when Backened was Oracle.
Also when drilling in webi report,it takes lot of time .
So can you suggest any solution?

Hi Gaurav,
We logged this issue with support already, it is acknowledged.
What happens is that whenever you use an infoobject in the condition
(so pull in the object into condition and build a condition there,
or use that object in a filter object in the universe and then use the filter)
this will result in that object being added to the result set.
Since the query will retrieve a lot of different calendar days for the period you selected,
the resultset will be VERY big and performance virtually non-existent.
The workaround we used is to use a BEX variable for all date based selections.
One optional range variable makes it possible to build various types of selections
(less (with a very early startdate), greater (with a very far in the future enddate) and between).
Because the range selection is now handled by BEX, the calendar day will not be part of the selection...
Good luck!
Marianne

Bad HDMI performance in SL compared to Bootcamp W7

Hi!
I've stumbled over a problem when playing back Netflix content from my MBP (2009) onto a TV via HDMI. The TV is perfectly recognized as second monitor, but fullscreen playback of streamed content (e.g. Netflix, but also iTunes) shows little video stuttering, especially during scenes with a lot of movement (using the high-performance grafix card). Running Windows 7 from the Bootcamp partition, Netflix playback is smooth, thus I doubt it is due to a hardware problem.
If anyone has an idea why SL shows such a bad performance, I'd appreciate to hear your opinion (or solution)!
Best,
Geo

Ok this driver must really be a **** up, i just ran a grapichs only test with "Xbench" and when i ran it with 9600M GT i only got 2 point more than with the 9400M
Results:
nVidia 9400M
Results 156.44
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G55)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model MacBookPro5,1
Drive Type Hitachi HTS543225L9SA02
Quartz Graphics Test 169.49
Line 162.85 10.84 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 198.70 59.32 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 165.19 13.47 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 160.07 4.04 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 165.97 10.38 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 145.25
Spinning Squares 145.25 184.25 frames/sec
nVidia 9600M GT:
Results 158.17
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G55)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model MacBookPro5,1
Drive Type Hitachi HTS543225L9SA02
Quartz Graphics Test 171.55
Line 162.38 10.81 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 204.42 61.03 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 167.78 13.68 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 161.95 4.08 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 167.77 10.49 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 146.73
Spinning Squares 146.73 186.13 frames/sec

PE 13: Upload to Youtube performance much worse compared with Premiere Elements 10

Since a week I have premiere Elements 13 purchased and installed and the first experience after creating three movies and uploading them to youtube is that I am thinking of going back to PE version 10. Uploading of a movie of 5 minutes takes more than 70 minutes!! In premiere Elements 10 it was much faster (approx.10-15 minutes. I have broadband glassfiber connection (just tested speed:90MB/s)
It seems an authentication/firewall kind of protocol is unacceptably slowing down the upload to youtube.
What could I do in settings to improve speed?
Kind regards, Fred

Fred
What computer operating system is your Premiere Elements 13 running on? Same one as Premiere Elements 10?
Have you ever run Premiere Elements 10 on the same computer as 13 for YouTube comparisons with the same upload content?
You seem to have found the cause of the problem since you wrote
It seems an authentication/firewall kind of protocol is unacceptably slowing down the upload to youtube.
What is your evidence for that? And, where do you believe the firewall to be in your computer operating system, buried with the authorization process of the Premiere Elements feature, or other?
With your present Premiere Elements 13 Timeline content and export to file, do you find faster uploading to YouTube at the YouTube web site
as compared to uploading the file with that same content to YouTube from within the Premiere Elements 13 feature?
ATR

Flash in Firefox performance is terrible compared to other browsers

I have been having this problem with Firefox for over a year now, and nothing changes. So many updates and this problem still persists. I have read several possible fixes for this issue, yet nothing works. It is strange that many users have complained about this issue and Mozilla has done nothing to fix it.
At the moment, I'm at the breaking point with this browser. Sometimes pages freeze while loading, and other browsers don't have this problem either. You mean to tell me that even Internet Explorer performs better than Firefox when it comes to watching videos online and loading pages without freezing?
I remember when I use to think the issue has a lot to do with my slow computer. After getting a better one with 8GB of RAM, the problem still shows its ugly head
You guys are joking. Either fix this long running problem, or exit the browser market.

Hello,
Try disabling graphics hardware acceleration. Since this feature was added to Firefox, it has gradually improved, but there still are a few glitches.
You might need to restart Firefox in order for this to take effect, so save all work first (e.g., mail you are composing, online documents you're editing, etc.).
Then perform these steps:
#Open Firefox ''Options'' window (''Preferences'' on Mac or Linux) as follows:
#* In Firefox 29.0 and above, click the menu button [[Image:New Fx Menu]] and select ''Options'' for Windows or ''Preferences'' on Mac or Linux.
#* In Firefox 28.0 and previous versions, click the orange Firefox button at the top left, then select the "Options" button, or, if there is no Firefox button at the top, go to Tools > Options.
#In the Firefox Options (or Preferences) window, click the ''Advanced'' tab, then select ''General''.
#In the settings list, you should find the ''Use hardware acceleration when available'' checkbox. Uncheck this checkbox.
#Now, restart Firefox and see if the problems persist.
Additionally, please check for updates for your graphics driver by following the steps mentioned in the following Knowledge base articles:
* [[Troubleshoot extensions, themes and hardware acceleration issues to solve common Firefox problems]]
* [[Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]]
Did this fix your problems? Please report back to us!
Thank you.

How does performance of JSP compare to PHP, ASP, etc?

          "One thing I've found lately is that server-side Java (JSP) is,
          surprisingly, often omitted by web hosting providers. I thought that,
          Java being the ultimate web language, just about everyone would offer
          it, but it is fairly difficult to find at reasonable prices. Apparently,
          it is a relative resource hog. One guy I talked to said that they
          wouldn't be able to put more than three JSP sites on a server, whereas
          using PHP or ASP, etc, they could do an order of magnitude better."
          A friend of mine sent me that statement above. Is this roughly a true
          statement? (I'm posting this here just as a starter. It is not aimed at
          Weblogic at all...note that Weblogic is NOT even mentioned in the quote
          above.)
          The phrase "...everyone would offer it" pertains to the fact that my friend
          has been conversing with various 'web hosting providers', and he came to
          this
          'conclusion' after talking with a bunch of them in search of a company to
          host some of his client-companies web pages.
          Thanks in advance for your experiences.
          Cheers...
          Dave


On resource needs, in my experience, JSPs (and Java servers in general) require
          considerably more memory to run, but can actually reduce the CPU requirements.
          For example I had an application written in mod_perl, and when compared to the
          J2EE port, the mod_perl version consumed 1/2 the RAM, but the J2EE version
          was suprisingly much faster in execution (sluggish pages in the mod_perl version
          were very snappy in the J2EE version, on the same exact hardware.)
          But the biggest problem for ISPs is actually the management of the servers, not so
          much the hardware resources it takes. Today J2EE servers are still relatively complex
          to manage and configure. E.g., even a small ISP using Apache can easily(!) support
          dozens or even hundreds of virtual hosts for its clients... try doing that with Weblogic
          or any other JSP/Servlet/EJB engine... nightmare!!
          Take the deployment model as an example... in Perl/PHP/Frontpage-land the ISP
          can simply give each clients a few directories (e.g., the old 'cgi-bin' and 'public_html'
          dirs) and the client is self-sufficient. When a client changes something, they just ftp
          the new files into the directory and voila, it's done. No need for hand-holding from the
          ISP.
          In contrast one can't do that with J2EE servers today... applications must be packaged
          in some specific format, resources (like JDBC DataSources, JavaMail, security roles,
          etc.) must be setup often by hand, the administrator must contend with a variety of
          classpath and JSP compiler issues, the application then must be deployed to the server
          using a proprietary tool (which can fail), the server may need to be told to "reload" the
          new application, etc., etc.
          Not very easy to manage when you have lots of clients!! Not to mention that very few
          system administrators today in ISPs have a good understanding about Java in general;
          few can tell the difference between Jdk 1.0 and Jdk 1.4; and only a tiny minority will
          know something about running J2EE servers in production at all.
          regards,
          -Ade
          "David Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
          >
          > "One thing I've found lately is that server-side Java (JSP) is,
          > surprisingly, often omitted by web hosting providers. I thought that,
          > Java being the ultimate web language, just about everyone would offer
          > it, but it is fairly difficult to find at reasonable prices. Apparently,
          > it is a relative resource hog. One guy I talked to said that they
          > wouldn't be able to put more than three JSP sites on a server, whereas
          > using PHP or ASP, etc, they could do an order of magnitude better."
          >
          > A friend of mine sent me that statement above. Is this roughly a true
          > statement? (I'm posting this here just as a starter. It is not aimed at
          > Weblogic at all...note that Weblogic is NOT even mentioned in the quote
          > above.)
          >
          > The phrase "...everyone would offer it" pertains to the fact that my friend
          > has been conversing with various 'web hosting providers', and he came to
          > this
          > 'conclusion' after talking with a bunch of them in search of a company to
          > host some of his client-companies web pages.
          >
          > Thanks in advance for your experiences.
          >
          > Cheers...
          > Dave
          >
          >

EDN and JMS

Hi,
Are EDN and JMS comparable?
Can we use EDN instead of JMS?How reliable is EDN compared to JMS(message loss etc)?
Also how to know if an EDN is JMS or DB based.
Thanks.

This is a functional desire that has come up on some of our projects too but is not directly supported by EDN. We have discussed the idea of EDN proxies (either as SOA Composites or as PL/SQL EDN subscribers). These proxies (presumably always active/deployed) would subscribe to EDN and provide a persistent buffer for the application. This is essentially implementing a persistence queue for each subscriber, but we wish to avoid statically configuring an AQ or JMS queue destination for each and every app subscription case and perhaps use some shared-but-keyed persistence design (e.g. database table).
Architecturally, this starts to hit on the ever evasive and controversial question of what is an "Event" versus what is a "Message". i.e. can you afford to sometimes miss the former but not the latter?
-Todd

JMS Connector ReceiverThreads setting in 10.1.3.3 to improve performance?

Gurus,
I am using nonBlockingInvoke=true property in bpel.xml to spawn a thread for each parallel flow activity.
However, upon setting this property, I found a hit in performance. I suspect the JMS Connector ReceiverThreads setting to be the issue. If more ReceiverThreads could listen on the queue, the performance might improve. (Page 47 of the 10.1.3.1. Performance Tuning Document).
But, I'm not able to locate this property in orion-ejb-jar.xml. Is this property set in some other file or does this property have to be added (please can you provide the exact code)?
Thanks a ton!
SP

You can find ReceiverThreads documentation here:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B32110_01/web.1013/b28958/jms.htm
(Table 4-11)
There are examples above the table which show how to add a property.
(A property can be added either to orion-ejb-jar.xml or ejb-jar.xml though if you are setting the property via an .xml file orion-ejb-jar.xml is recommended since this is an OC4J-specific setting.)
Alternatively, you can set it via annotation. See here:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B32110_01/web.1013/b28221/actcfgprop.htm

Performance of EDN compared to JMS/AQ

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for