Response time is increasing with increase in Clients

HI All,
I have a stateless session bean which is performing a multi-table SQL query via the weblogic connection pool using JDBC thin drivers to Oracle. I have used threads to check the performance of the EJB when the Clients are more than one at a point of time. I noted that there is a substancial increase in time if the number of clients are high. For example, my query returns 100+ results and time taken by 1 client to loop through all the results is 4 sec wheras if the number of clients are 5 then it is 9.2 sec average and if clients are 10, it is 16.7 sec average and for 15 it is 25.07 avg and for 20 clients it is a whoopping 34 seconds !!!!
My question is where is the bottleneck, is it in the :
1. EJB Session Bean Code
2. JDBC driver limitation ( using classes12.zip)
3. Oracle DB limitation
I am confused, any help would be higly appreciated.
Somu.

1. What is the maximum number of beans you are allowing
in the bean pool? You might increase it to see if the problem goes away.
2. Have you isolated your test to ensure that you are not including the time to do the JNDI lookup? This is very expensive.
3. What is the isolation level that you are using for the queries? More restrictive isolation can also cause bottlenecks.
4. Have you performance tuned your SQL statement? Are you using PreparedStatement instead of Statement?

Similar Messages

Why is Oracle Response time getting slow with time.

Hi,
     I have DB which was very fast initially with the response time for one of the query < 5 sec.
     I have been using the DB for the last 15 days. Now the same query is taking 10 minutes. In the DB there are lot of operations of additions and deletions been done on the table where the query is being made. The no. of records in the table is constant at around 3 million records from the first day.
     If I import the DB into a new setup then again the response time becomes very good in the new setup.
     What should be the problem of the DB getting slow with the time.
Thanks,
Tuhin

It all depends on several factors.
Are your tables,indexes have upto-date statistics?
I have DB which was very fast initially with the response time for one of the query < 5 sec. Initially there might be small amount of data later data might have increased,you dont have proper indexes.
It could be that your indexes got fragmented to due to heavey deletes? It might need reorg.
My suggestion would to look into your execution plan of the quries and see where your kernals are waiting.
As other suggested you, use explain plan, event 10046 and tkprof.
Jaffar

CVU failing with error msg(PRVF-5636 : The DNS response time for an unreach

I am installing 4Node 10g RAC on OEL5.3, i downloaded CU from OTN and getting below warning messages.
Checking the file "/etc/resolv.conf"; to make sure only one of domain and search entries is defined
File "/etc/resolv.conf"; does not have both domain and search entries defined
Checking if domain entry in file "/etc/resolv.conf"; is consistent across the nodes...
domain entry in file "/etc/resolv.conf"; is consistent across nodes
Checking if search entry in file "/etc/resolv.conf"; is consistent across the nodes...
search entry in file "/etc/resolv.conf"; is consistent across nodes
Checking file "/etc/resolv.conf"; to make sure that only one search entry is defined
All nodes have one search entry defined in file "/etc/resolv.conf";
Checking all nodes to make sure that search entry is "soft1" as found on node "racnode4"
All nodes of the cluster have same value for 'search'
Checking DNS response time for an unreachable node
Node Name Status
racnode4 failed
racnode3 failed
racnode2 failed
racnode1 failed
PRVF-5636 : The DNS response time for an unreachable node exceeded "15000" ms on following nodes: racnode4,racnode3,racnode2,racnode1
File "/etc/resolv.conf"; is not consistent across nodes
Check: Time zone consistency
Result: Time zone consistency check passed
Pre-check for cluster services setup was unsuccessful on all the nodes.
[oracle@racnode1 bin]$

PRVF-5636 : The DNS response time for an unreachable node exceeded "15000" ms on following nodes: racnode4,racnode3,racnode2,racnode1 have you checked this note? Runcluvfy - Dns Response Time Check - Fails with PRVF-5636 The DNS response time for an unreachable node exceeded "15000" ms [ID 1326997.1]
Also have you set Domain name on all servers?
[root@oracle-ha ~]# domainname
(none)
[root@oracle-ha ~]# domainname ckpt.com
[root@oracle-ha ~]# domainname
ckpt.com
[root@oracle-ha ~]#You can check DNS configuration of your setup using this link http://computernetworkingnotes.com/network-administrations/dns-server.html

Reg Increasing the EJB Response Time

We are facing below performance problems in our application,
1. Response time from EJB (Stateless Session Bean) to Client (Swing).
2. Time taken for looping through the Result Set.
For 5000 records, our query is taking 0.2 Secs but looping through the ResultSet is taking around 16 seconds and Response time for transferring 160 kb (object data) from EJB to Client is taking around 30 Secs.
We have achieved some improvement in ResultSet looping time by setting the setFetchSize of ResultSet to 250.
Can anyone suggest?
1. Is there any way to increase the Data Transfer time (Response time) from EJB to Client?
2. What is the ideal value for setting the value for ResultSet.setFetchSize() ( No of records we fetch vary from 1 � 3,00,000 records)

1. Response time from EJB (Stateless Session Bean) to
Client (Swing). Consider non-EJB options. They might prove efficient in your case.
2. Time taken for looping through the Result Set. Try and design your code as to not require all the records at a time.
For 5000 records, our query is taking 0.2 Secs but
looping through the ResultSet is taking around 16
seconds and Response time for transferring 160 kb
(object data) from EJB to Client is taking around 30
Secs.
We have achieved some improvement in ResultSet
looping time by setting the setFetchSize of ResultSet
to 250. There is a limit to what you can achieve with that.
Can anyone suggest?
1. Is there any way to increase the Data Transfer
time (Response time) from EJB to Client? I suppose you would want to reduce the response time.
2. What is the ideal value for setting the value for
ResultSet.setFetchSize() ( No of records we fetch
vary from 1 � 3,00,000 records)
shrug

How to increase built-in cisco vpn peer response timer?

Hi,
I use OS x in-built cisco vpn client to connect to work VPN.
The VPN server, or perhaps the radius server, takes a long time to return a response. OS X always try for 10 seconds, then drop the conneciton when no response from the remote peer. When I use cisco vpn client on a windows machine, the vpn client has a setting to allow for 90 seconds remote peer response time. It works fine using cisco vpn client.
I prefer to use os x as my primary working environment, so I need to fix this problme. My question is how to increase the phase 1 & 2 timer for vpn under 10.6.7. I have tried to change racoon.conf phase 1 & phase 2 timer, but it made no difference. OS X only try for 10 seconds.
Any ideas? (besides asking work people to fix the server or radius problem)
Thanks
jmsherry123

i have the same problem ... certificate is imported in keychain, but cant select it when setup vpn connection

Dramatically increased response times when connected to network

I suddenly noticed that the response time for opening a folder item in my local Portal installation increased when I connected to the network. Why? I want to understand this, since I'm supposed to help a customer with their performance problems.
Further details:
The response time increased from about 2 seconds to about 10 seconds when I connected to the network. In this case, I connected via an ISDN line to my normal dial-up number at work. However, when I connect to my private ISP account (Telenor Online), the response times are unchanged, i.e. still 2 seconds.
One difference between the two access points is the use of a proxy in the first case.
What's the explanation?
Thanks, Erik Hagen
null

Hi,
To your issue, the following blogs would be helpful:
Outlook Performance Troubleshooting including Office 365
How To Troubleshoot Microsoft Exchange Server Latency or Connection
Issues
Thanks,
Jessie

Response time increase in OSB

Dear all,
While performing the Load test, during initial 2 - 3 hrs performance is very good. after 2 -3 hrs response time increasing and there by throughput going down 4 times.
when i check in GC Log, i found all OC's. generally i used to find many YC's and very less OC's. but this time its deferent. not sure why this behaviour.
Below is snap shot of my gc.log.
Following are my startManagedweblogic java options.
JAVA_OPTIONS="${JAVA_OPTIONS} -Xverbose:memory -Xmx:6144m -Xms:6144m -Xns:3072m -Xverbosetimestamp -Xgcprio:pausetime -Xverboselog:/usr/home/WEBADM/blq2gsbl/BLQRYSBDM/bin/gc.log -Xverbose:gcreport -XlargePages -XXgcThreads:8 -XXtlasize:min=2k,preferred=16k -XXnoSystemGC"
please note that i have enough memory to increase till 12 gb also. i found better performance with 6g so i kept it as 6.
[WARN ] Use of -Djrockit.optfile is deprecated and discouraged.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:11 2013][16261] Running with 32 bit heap and compressed references supporting 32GB heap.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:11 2013][16261] Using 256MB pages for Java heap.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] GC mode: Garbage collection optimized for short pausetimes, strategy: Generational Concurrent Mark & Sweep.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] Heap size: 6291456KB, maximal heap size: 6291456KB, nursery size: 3145728KB.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <start>-<end>: <type> <before>KB-><after>KB (<heap>KB), <time> ms, sum of pauses <pause> ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <start> - start time of collection (seconds since jvm start).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <type>   - OC (old collection) or YC (young collection).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <end>    - end time of collection (seconds since jvm start).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <before> - memory used by objects before collection (KB).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <after> - memory used by objects after collection (KB).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <heap>   - size of heap after collection (KB).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <time>   - total time of collection (milliseconds).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261] <pause> - total sum of pauses during collection (milliseconds).
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:34:12 2013][16261]            Run with -Xverbose:gcpause to see individual phases.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:49:59 2013][16261] [YC#1] 947.689-948.011: YC 3426740KB->1274833KB (6291456KB), 0.323 s, sum of pauses 322.080 ms, longest pause 322.080 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:50:18 2013][16261] [YC#2] 966.433-966.521: YC 3700241KB->1381022KB (6291456KB), 0.088 s, sum of pauses 87.355 ms, longest pause 87.355 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:50:33 2013][16261] [YC#3] 981.691-981.734: YC 3806640KB->1448962KB (6291456KB), 0.043 s, sum of pauses 42.316 ms, longest pause 42.316 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:50:48 2013][16261] [YC#4] 996.195-996.232: YC 3876151KB->1518729KB (6291456KB), 0.037 s, sum of pauses 36.360 ms, longest pause 36.360 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:51:03 2013][16261] [YC#5] 1011.797-1011.833: YC 3950327KB->1592393KB (6291456KB), 0.036 s, sum of pauses 35.004 ms, longest pause 35.004 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:51:19 2013][16261] [YC#6] 1027.447-1027.489: YC 4022805KB->1665479KB (6291456KB), 0.041 s, sum of pauses 40.711 ms, longest pause 40.711 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:51:34 2013][16261] [YC#7] 1043.090-1043.127: YC 4097355KB->1739629KB (6291456KB), 0.037 s, sum of pauses 35.984 ms, longest pause 35.984 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:51:50 2013][16261] [YC#8] 1058.656-1058.704: YC 4171396KB->1814054KB (6291456KB), 0.047 s, sum of pauses 46.695 ms, longest pause 46.695 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:52:00 2013][16261] [YC#9] 1068.490-1068.533: YC 4245475KB->1887941KB (6291456KB), 0.043 s, sum of pauses 42.002 ms, longest pause 42.002 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:52:09 2013][16261] [YC#10] 1077.381-1077.421: YC 4318167KB->1961481KB (6291456KB), 0.041 s, sum of pauses 39.592 ms, longest pause 39.592 ms.
[memory ][Mon Aug 12 12:52:19 2013][16261] [YC#11] 1087.366-1087.406: YC 4394185KB->2036571KB (6291456KB), 0.039 s, sum of pauses 38.757 ms
87.597 ms, longest pause 50.632 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:28 2013][16261] [OC#9822] 107234.509-107237.018: OC 893216KB->845338KB (6291456KB), 2.509 s, sum of pauses 536.399 ms, longest pause 504.274 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:31 2013][16261] [OC#9823] 107237.419-107239.864: OC 1116022KB->860547KB (6291456KB), 2.445 s, sum of pauses 414.935 ms, longest pause 354.974 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:34 2013][16261] [OC#9824] 107239.864-107242.447: OC 949080KB->878533KB (6291456KB), 2.583 s, sum of pauses 541.277 ms, longest pause 504.113 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:37 2013][16261] [OC#9825] 107242.447-107245.494: OC 953535KB->860560KB (6291456KB), 3.047 s, sum of pauses 633.955 ms, longest pause 504.806 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:39 2013][16261] [OC#9826] 107245.494-107247.971: OC 1054631KB->869654KB (6291456KB), 2.478 s, sum of pauses 541.422 ms, longest pause 504.193 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:42 2013][16261] [OC#9827] 107247.972-107250.441: OC 921210KB->857407KB (6291456KB), 2.469 s, sum of pauses 483.940 ms, longest pause 440.031 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:45 2013][16261] [OC#9828] 107250.792-107253.213: OC 1132559KB->875285KB (6291456KB), 2.422 s, sum of pauses 524.526 ms, longest pause 487.132 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:47 2013][16261] [OC#9829] 107253.213-107255.610: OC 899114KB->855957KB (6291456KB), 2.397 s, sum of pauses 481.233 ms, longest pause 451.024 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:50 2013][16261] [OC#9830] 107256.011-107258.297: OC 1127479KB->868126KB (6291456KB), 2.286 s, sum of pauses 373.648 ms, longest pause 336.646 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:52 2013][16261] [OC#9831] 107258.298-107260.847: OC 912365KB->856462KB (6291456KB), 2.550 s, sum of pauses 526.103 ms, longest pause 492.768 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:55 2013][16261] [OC#9832] 107261.098-107263.611: OC 1044068KB->863005KB (6291456KB), 2.513 s, sum of pauses 541.427 ms, longest pause 504.196 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:21:57 2013][16261] [OC#9833] 107263.611-107265.846: OC 902510KB->847460KB (6291456KB), 2.235 s, sum of pauses 213.535 ms, longest pause 179.799 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:00 2013][16261] [OC#9834] 107265.946-107268.356: OC 974573KB->863254KB (6291456KB), 2.409 s, sum of pauses 441.951 ms, longest pause 405.552 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:02 2013][16261] [OC#9835] 107268.556-107271.134: OC 1013772KB->856892KB (6291456KB), 2.578 s, sum of pauses 542.932 ms, longest pause 503.782 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:05 2013][16261] [OC#9836] 107271.134-107273.302: OC 946088KB->860358KB (6291456KB), 2.168 s, sum of pauses 220.883 ms, longest pause 182.948 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:07 2013][16261] [OC#9837] 107273.552-107275.500: OC 1010670KB->854399KB (6291456KB), 1.948 s, sum of pauses 120.783 ms, longest pause 56.691 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:09 2013][16261] [OC#9838] 107275.501-107277.801: OC 906839KB->850508KB (6291456KB), 2.301 s, sum of pauses 399.919 ms, longest pause 367.834 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:11 2013][16261] [OC#9839] 107278.052-107280.071: OC 1045319KB->862319KB (6291456KB), 2.019 s, sum of pauses 144.317 ms, longest pause 75.239 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:14 2013][16261] [OC#9840] 107280.071-107282.578: OC 887997KB->849438KB (6291456KB), 2.507 s, sum of pauses 537.495 ms, longest pause 504.761 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:16 2013][16261] [OC#9841] 107282.879-107284.888: OC 1061809KB->860007KB (6291456KB), 2.009 s, sum of pauses 137.893 ms, longest pause 63.667 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:19 2013][16261] [OC#9842] 107284.888-107287.367: OC 908775KB->852632KB (6291456KB), 2.479 s, sum of pauses 541.465 ms, longest pause 504.889 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:21 2013][16261] [OC#9843] 107287.517-107289.881: OC 1005267KB->849986KB (6291456KB), 2.364 s, sum of pauses 160.999 ms, longest pause 86.633 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:24 2013][16261] [OC#9844] 107289.881-107292.353: OC 907985KB->848410KB (6291456KB), 2.472 s, sum of pauses 540.357 ms, longest pause 504.985 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:26 2013][16261] [OC#9845] 107292.353-107294.314: OC 916160KB->850798KB (6291456KB), 1.961 s, sum of pauses 104.840 ms, longest pause 66.068 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:28 2013][16261] [OC#9846] 107294.364-107296.780: OC 923551KB->849834KB (6291456KB), 2.416 s, sum of pauses 440.677 ms, longest pause 403.477 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:30 2013][16261] [OC#9847] 107296.931-107299.111: OC 997464KB->858904KB (6291456KB), 2.180 s, sum of pauses 246.058 ms, longest pause 206.937 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:33 2013][16261] [OC#9848] 107299.111-107301.563: OC 903415KB->851026KB (6291456KB), 2.452 s, sum of pauses 540.845 ms, longest pause 504.318 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:35 2013][16261] [OC#9849] 107301.814-107303.861: OC 1013878KB->857614KB (6291456KB), 2.048 s, sum of pauses 94.386 ms, longest pause 53.197 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:38 2013][16261] [OC#9850] 107303.861-107306.212: OC 887706KB->860005KB (6291456KB), 2.350 s, sum of pauses 346.029 ms, longest pause 311.092 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:40 2013][16261] [OC#9851] 107306.262-107308.853: OC 937699KB->860853KB (6291456KB), 2.591 s, sum of pauses 557.007 ms, longest pause 501.625 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:43 2013][16261] [OC#9852] 107308.853-107311.426: OC 951313KB->870294KB (6291456KB), 2.573 s, sum of pauses 541.352 ms, longest pause 504.381 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:45 2013][16261] [OC#9853] 107311.426-107314.144: OC 909609KB->852710KB (6291456KB), 2.718 s, sum of pauses 583.129 ms, longest pause 504.576 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:48 2013][16261] [OC#9854] 107314.144-107316.628: OC 969124KB->858298KB (6291456KB), 2.484 s, sum of pauses 542.151 ms, longest pause 504.257 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:50 2013][16261] [OC#9855] 107316.628-107319.114: OC 915682KB->849121KB (6291456KB), 2.486 s, sum of pauses 495.272 ms, longest pause 447.599 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:53 2013][16261] [OC#9856] 107319.314-107321.936: OC 1006620KB->861443KB (6291456KB), 2.621 s, sum of pauses 544.915 ms, longest pause 504.410 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:56 2013][16261] [OC#9857] 107321.936-107324.410: OC 922270KB->852766KB (6291456KB), 2.474 s, sum of pauses 541.767 ms, longest pause 504.142 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:22:58 2013][16261] [OC#9858] 107324.610-107327.023: OC 1039488KB->861496KB (6291456KB), 2.413 s, sum of pauses 542.856 ms, longest pause 504.187 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:01 2013][16261] [OC#9859] 107327.023-107329.315: OC 918829KB->843657KB (6291456KB), 2.292 s, sum of pauses 321.525 ms, longest pause 286.826 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:03 2013][16261] [OC#9860] 107329.616-107332.141: OC 1069773KB->863389KB (6291456KB), 2.525 s, sum of pauses 548.231 ms, longest pause 504.177 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:06 2013][16261] [OC#9861] 107332.141-107334.343: OC 915522KB->853889KB (6291456KB), 2.202 s, sum of pauses 189.135 ms, longest pause 153.663 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:08 2013][16261] [OC#9862] 107334.644-107337.056: OC 1032066KB->868736KB (6291456KB), 2.412 s, sum of pauses 545.438 ms, longest pause 504.254 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:11 2013][16261] [OC#9863] 107337.056-107339.296: OC 915783KB->864080KB (6291456KB), 2.240 s, sum of pauses 298.272 ms, longest pause 263.347 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:13 2013][16261] [OC#9864] 107339.597-107341.923: OC 1011429KB->878520KB (6291456KB), 2.326 s, sum of pauses 456.568 ms, longest pause 419.025 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:15 2013][16261] [OC#9865] 107341.923-107343.934: OC 919359KB->840367KB (6291456KB), 2.011 s, sum of pauses 125.250 ms, longest pause 57.223 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:18 2013][16261] [OC#9866] 107344.185-107346.733: OC 1012840KB->874965KB (6291456KB), 2.548 s, sum of pauses 540.636 ms, longest pause 504.970 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:20 2013][16261] [OC#9867] 107346.750-107348.793: OC 933751KB->854858KB (6291456KB), 2.043 s, sum of pauses 156.099 ms, longest pause 82.344 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:23 2013][16261] [OC#9868] 107348.793-107351.335: OC 887450KB->867195KB (6291456KB), 2.542 s, sum of pauses 537.543 ms, longest pause 504.801 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:25 2013][16261] [OC#9869] 107351.486-107353.546: OC 996281KB->860628KB (6291456KB), 2.060 s, sum of pauses 160.157 ms, longest pause 73.442 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:27 2013][16261] [OC#9870] 107353.546-107356.073: OC 906961KB->872330KB (6291456KB), 2.527 s, sum of pauses 539.374 ms, longest pause 504.913 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:30 2013][16261] [OC#9871] 107356.273-107358.702: OC 996457KB->851473KB (6291456KB), 2.429 s, sum of pauses 166.761 ms, longest pause 86.493 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:33 2013][16261] [OC#9872] 107358.703-107361.265: OC 907359KB->863117KB (6291456KB), 2.562 s, sum of pauses 541.203 ms, longest pause 504.927 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:35 2013][16261] [OC#9873] 107361.265-107363.378: OC 912545KB->853583KB (6291456KB), 2.113 s, sum of pauses 112.867 ms, longest pause 69.906 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:37 2013][16261] [OC#9874] 107363.379-107365.933: OC 919557KB->864998KB (6291456KB), 2.554 s, sum of pauses 543.605 ms, longest pause 504.637 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:39 2013][16261] [OC#9875] 107365.983-107368.091: OC 958748KB->857127KB (6291456KB), 2.108 s, sum of pauses 252.535 ms, longest pause 215.897 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:42 2013][16261] [OC#9876] 107368.342-107370.827: OC 999403KB->865783KB (6291456KB), 2.485 s, sum of pauses 540.028 ms, longest pause 504.197 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:44 2013][16261] [OC#9877] 107370.827-107372.683: OC 923670KB->857704KB (6291456KB), 1.856 s, sum of pauses 87.595 ms, longest pause 52.619 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:47 2013][16261] [OC#9878] 107372.883-107375.283: OC 985737KB->859804KB (6291456KB), 2.399 s, sum of pauses 487.291 ms, longest pause 451.118 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:49 2013][16261] [OC#9879] 107375.283-107377.932: OC 915211KB->853184KB (6291456KB), 2.649 s, sum of pauses 555.557 ms, longest pause 504.480 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:52 2013][16261] [OC#9880] 107377.932-107380.212: OC 1009969KB->874361KB (6291456KB), 2.279 s, sum of pauses 375.384 ms, longest pause 335.326 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:54 2013][16261] [OC#9881] 107380.212-107382.461: OC 914805KB->855458KB (6291456KB), 2.249 s, sum of pauses 288.521 ms, longest pause 250.881 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:56 2013][16261] [OC#9882] 107382.562-107384.892: OC 966755KB->867614KB (6291456KB), 2.330 s, sum of pauses 500.018 ms, longest pause 463.414 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:23:59 2013][16261] [OC#9883] 107384.942-107387.565: OC 932206KB->853768KB (6291456KB), 2.622 s, sum of pauses 565.151 ms, longest pause 504.160 ms.
[memory ][Tue Aug 13 18:24:01 2013][16261] [OC#9884] 107387.565-107389.985: OC 958792KB->862315KB (6291456KB), 2.421 s, sum of pauses 461.570 ms, longest pause 420.545 ms.

You need to find out the error code you get in fault due to response timeout. (run a test using test console and you would get that)
In error handler of stage from where you are calling this business service, check whether status code in $fault is equal to the error code due to response timeout. If it is equal then replace content of $body with required error xml and use reply with success.
See section "37.6 Fault Variable" to know more about $fault -
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E14571_01/doc.1111/e15867/context.htm#i1051956
Regards,
Anuj

Increase synchronous process response time

hi all
From my sycn BPEL process I am calling CRM sycn’ly .
Response from CRM is coming very lately for that I am getting time out error .
Can we achieve a scenario where my sync BPEL process will wait for a longer time .
Its not possible to make it async delayed response also.
Keeping it Sync only how can I increase in response time period?
i am using SOA 10.1.3.4 version.
thx in advance ..

Go to the BPEL Properties in EM, then advanced BPEL properties, find the property syncMaxWaitTime And increase it to 240 may be...
Also increase the JTA timeout in weblogic console....keep this value more than 240

How can increase response time:dialog

Dear all,
how can i change(increase/decrease) dialog workprocess response time?

> how can i change(increase/decrease) dialog workprocess response time?
Can you please tell us exactly what you want to do?
Read
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/21/2c8f38c7215428e10000009b38f8cf/frameset.htm
about what "Response time" is defined and then please rephrase your question.
Markus

LYNC 2013 mobility clients disconnect and AAR bad response time

Good day,
I'm new to this, but have to implement LYNC 2013 for our company.
I have implemented Lync 2013 by following various instructions and all seems fine... apart from all mobile clients (internal/external - Andoid/IOS). They get disconnected after a few minutes. On Android the error is "unknown error" (very useful)
and on IOPS it's "unhandeled alert type 302 E_Badgateway (E2-3-35).
What I have noticed is that on AAR, on the LYNCWEB server farm (under " Monitoring and Management") the response time is huge (10000 + ms) and when the errors come up on the clients I get a "failed request".
I can not think what may be wrong but all is pointing to AAR?
AAR is version 3 running on 2021 R2
any ideas? been stuck for a week on this now.
Many thanks
DD

Hi,
From your description above, it seems to be the issue with IIS ARR.
You can check with the following steps:
Check if DNS records and certificate were appropriate.
Check if ExposedWebURL set to External.
Try to increase the time out value from 200 to 1800
More details:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/nexthop/archive/2013/02/19/using-iis-arr-as-a-reverse-proxy-for-lync-server-2013.aspx
Best Regards,
Eason Huang
Eason Huang
TechNet Community Support

RFC response times deteriorate with time

Hi
We notice that every time our system is restarted, performance is much improved for a the first few weeks. I can appreciate this from the fact that it is a huge system and things can 'clog up' after a while but we have been trying to isolate any specific cause / memory leaks etc.
One thing we have noticed is that although average dialog and background response times appear to increase gradually with time, RFC response times increase substantially. The first few days after a restart we see times of 2, 3 seconds, by the first week 7-10 seconds and by week two and beyond they are over 20 seconds.
We have 15 application servers and all the RFC traffic is load balanced using a RZ12 group that does not include the Central Instance; the same applies in SMQR & SMQS. We still do see some RFC traffic on the CI though... some of the application servers are on a different site, but we cannot see any differences in response times across sites...
Any ideas what's causing this and how we can keep these RFC response times down? The system is very busy and deals with a lot of RFC traffic, when users start complaining about poor performance we can usually see the system flooded with RFCs....
Due to size and nature of this system we can only arrange a restart every couple of months.
Thanks
Ross

Hi Markus, good question, but no, haven't noticed... not sure how I'd check either? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of different transactions ran each month, I'll try sorting the transactions by time for each day and see if there are any common longer runners that have increased, but think it'll be like looking for a needle in a haystack...

Response times (PING) very high with CAP3602i access point

I have installed an access point CAP3602i in mode HREAP a controller Model 5508 with version 7.4.100.0 but the response times of the connected users are very high.
The less users are connected to the access point is faster surfing the internet and response times are low. But if there are many users connected, increase response times.
I'll be grateful someone comments any experience with this problem.
Thanks

We are talking about 15 users per AP, but that everything is surfing the internet and not so heavy downloads before aps 1141 and had had no such problem response times were normal between 2,3,4 ms
There is performing some function more cap3602i ap causes high response times.
Supposedly CAP3602i I say are better than the 1141, which is why we made the change but we found with surprise that high times.
The SSID was HREAP doubt it has anything to do with the 1141 does not give the issue of high times.

Bad response in a Web Service on OC4J with many concurrrent clients

We have a Web Service in a OC4J container, this Web Services invoke the business services from another complex application (another ear with EJBs in the same container) with RMI connections.
We need this web service support many concurrent clients, but in our tests the performance is very bad, the web service supports ten concurrent clients in a long response time for all of them, (for one client the Web Service responses in 3 seconds / for 10 clients in 45 seconds) if we test with 20 concurrent clients, the web service can´t process at least 15 requests , the other 5 finish well
What can I do to improve the performance with many concurrent clients (100 +)

Hello,
I am quite surprised...
Could you please give us more information about your environment and behavior:
1- which version of oracleAS, WS and J2EE are you using?
2- do you have any information in the application log about possible source of error?
3- Any information about performance of the different layers?
Can you simplify the flow by creating the service in the same EAR than the EJB and void RMI calls for example?
regards
Tugdual Grall

Slow response time with terminal emulator

We are using Oracle Financials pkg. 10.7 Character mode using Oracle DB 7.3.3 on a IBM (sequent) S5000 running at DYNIX/ptx 4.2.3 (soon to be 4.2.4). On the end user side, the accounting dept. is connecting to the server using EXTRA Personal Client. During the course of the day, the response time of the emulator slows down. I can count to 25 sometimes b/4 the emulator responds (catches up with the key strokes). Some days it does not happen until the end of the work day and other times it can happen after just a few hours. After checking the network, application and server, we can find nothing wrong. If we have the user reboot their p.c., this seems to clear up the problem. Has anyone else seen or heard of this problem??? If so, does anyone know how to correct it??? We have installed and tried a different emulator that seems to be doing the samething, but only not as bad (slow).
Thanks,
Tony Dopkins
UNIX System Administrator
Andersen Windows

Never heard of this problem or this emulator product.
Oracle did/does have their own emulator that sort of similuates a GUI environment.
It is called OADM (Oracle Display Manager).
If you call support, they may be able to send it to you. However, it's no longer supported, and is a little buggy. But it has no performance problems.
If it straight character feel the users need, Kea TERM works 4 me.
Or, possibly call the your emulators support line.. it could be a known issue with their product..
Most likely it has nothing to do with Oracle products.

Cannot reinstall Lion, remaining time keep increasing

The thing is, when I was restalling Lion on my mac book pro, the remaining time kept increasing and never finish installation. What's wrong with it?

You probably will not be able to get Lion. Since you didn't buy it, it won't be available to you via download. You would need the seller's Apple ID and password to download it again. And with no online Apple Store in Israel you can't buy it from Apple. You'll either need to look for a private party selling the Lion Flash installer, which Apple sold for a while, or get a retail copy of 10.6 Snow Leopard and install that instead.
Regards.

Response time is increasing with increase in Clients

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for