cocoon-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From footh <>
Subject Re: Javaflow - major memory issue
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:24:06 GMT
Yes, I only applied 642694 as it was the only the link in your previous post.  I altered the

to the files in the links and rebuilt Cocoon, only switching out the javaflow library on my
instance.  Nothing else changed in my test environment from the calculable results I got last
time.  I'm using YourKit profiler and the Apache JMeter testing tool with debugging turned

Should I have applied all the fixes you described below?

--- Joerg Heinicke <> wrote:

> On 01.04.2008 18:52, footh wrote:
> > Just ran a very simple test using the changes from revision 642694 and had unusual
> > 
> > Byte arrays, and consequently the BufferedOutputStream still took up large amounts
of retained
> > space in the total memory usage.  So, this didn't change.
> > 
> > However, the memory did not clean up neatly like it did before...after about 10
> Before,
> > I would do, say 1000 samples, and total Tomcat memory would balloon to a point.
 Then I'd wait
> 10
> > minutes and would observe the byte array data cleaning up in the profiler with total
> memory
> > staying the same.  After that, I'd run another 1000 samples and the total Tomcat
memory would
> not
> > increase again until hitting around the 1000th sample and the cycle would repeat.
> > 
> > With these new changes, the memory cleaned up a little bit, but not nearly as much
as before. 
> And
> > the total memory would start increasing before I hit the control sample size.
> > 
> > The BufferedOutputStream path appears to be the same as well - flowing up to
> > ContinuationsManagerImpl.  Perhaps I'm doing something wrong?  I did make this changes
> version
> > 2.1.10 NOT 2.1.11 since I haven't upgraded my site to the new version yet.
> That's no good news :( And I can't see how this should be possible.
> Which changes exactly did you apply? Only rev 642694 [1]? The actual two 
> files changed are ContinuationContext (added method onSuspend()) and 
> AbstractContinuable (calling context.onSuspend() right before 
> Continuation.suspend()). The method only nulls out some values, so I 
> can't see how this should have worsen the situation. Both files had not 
> changed between 2.1.10 and 2.1.11, so this can neither be a reason.
> Second, this was only the first approach. After Torsten's review I did a 
> more "brave" approach setting the complete context to null before the 
> continuation gets suspended [2]. Here I reverted the above 2 changes to 
> AbstractContiuable and ContinuationsContext. The fix went into 
> Continuation (storing functionName and setting context to null in 
> suspend()) and JavaInterpreter (instantiating Continuation with 
> functionName and retrieving it from there later on). Again I can't see 
> how this should have worsen the situation. Both files had again not 
> changed since 2.1.10.
> Then in order to fix COCOON-2109 [3] I applied another fix [4]. If that 
> one helps you at all pretty much depends on whether you access old 
> continuations or not (when using a wizard you not only go forward along 
> the expected path (page 1, page 2, etc.) but also go back).
> The last important fix is for synchronization issues in 
> ContinuationsManagerImpl [5]. This definitely has some impact, it's 
> usually unlikely that fixing synchronization improves performance. If 
> you don't have this fix I can imagine that the situation is as bad as 
> you describe it for the following reasons: If something creates a new 
> continuation while the clean up thread for removing expired 
> continuations is active it kicks the latter one with a 
> ConcurrentModificationException - and the clean up just stops. This 
> would mean though that it was just bad luck in your new test.
> I don't know how exactly you profiled your system. You should definitely 
> NOT run on debug log level. I fixed the synchronization issues in favor 
> of the debug log level: There are no longer two sets maintained but the 
> second set (which was for debugging purposes only) gets recreated "on 
> demand", i.e. debug log level, which locks the manager for that time. 
> But it should improve the overall situation though.
> Joerg
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message