I am loading some XML with HTTPService in Flex. It is taking longer than I would like to load. So I want to do some trouble shooting, but in order to tell what is making a difference I need to be able to time the requests and how long they are taking.
What is the best way to time an http service to see how long it took from HTTPService.send() to HTTPService.result
Thanks!
This is a duplicate, go here to see my previous answer to the question:
In Flex, is there a way to determine how long an HTTPService.send() call takes round-trip?
I would recommend Charles Proxy ( http://www.charlesproxy.com/download/ ). I use it daily as a main tool for monitoring Flex traffic (it even supports AMF). There's a free version with some annoyances (I think it only runs 30 min. each time you run it, and displays a popup from time to time).
Related
I'm trying to make a tetris game in ocaml and i need to have a piece move through the graphics screen at a certain speed.
I think that the best way to do it is to make a recursive function that draws the piece at the top of the screen, waits half a second or so, clears that piece from the screen and redraws it 50 pixels lower. I just don't know how to make the programm wait. I think that you can do it using the Unix module but idk how..
Let's assume you want to take a fairly simple approach, i.e., an approach that works without multi-threading.
Presumably when your game is running it spends virtually all its time waiting for input from the user, i.e., waiting for the user to press a key. Most likely, in fact, you're using a blocking read to do this. Since the user can take any amount of time before typing anything (up to minutes or years), this is incompatible with keeping the graphical part of the game up to date.
A very simple solution then is to have a timeout on the read operation. Instead of waiting indefinitely for the user to press a key, you can wait at most (say) 10 milliseconds.
To do this, you can use the Unix.select function. The simplest way to do this is to switch over to using a Unix file descriptor for your input rather than an OCaml channel. If you can't figure out how to make this work, you might come back to StackOverflow with a more specific question.
I'm relatively new to JavaFX and have written a small applet which launches a number of (typically between 3 and 10) sub-processes. Each process has a dedicated tab displaying current status and a large TextArea where the process output is appended to. For simplicity all tabs are generated on startup.
javafx.application.Platform.runLater(() -> logTextArea.appendText(line)))
The applet works fine when workloads on sub-processes are low-moderate (not many logs), but starts to freeze when sub-processes are heavily used and generate a decent amount of logging output (a good few hundreds of lines per second in total).
I looked into binding the TextArea to the output, but my understanding is it effectively calls the Platform.runLater() method so there will still be hundreds of calls to JavaFX application thread per second.
Batching logging outputs isn't an ideal solution either because I'd like to keep the displayed log as real-time as possible.
The only solution which I think might solve the problem seems to be dynamic loading of individual tabs. This would definitely prevent unnecessary calls to update logging textareas that aren't currently visible, but before I go ahead to make the changes, I'd like to get some helpful advice from you here. Thanks!
Thanks for all your suggestions. Finally got around to implementing a fix today.
The issue was fixed by using a buffer coupled with a secondary check for time lapse (maximum 20 lines or 100 ms).
In addition, I also implemented rolling output to limit the total process output to 1,000 lines.
Thanks again for your invaluable contribution!
Does anybody have any hints as to how to approach writing an ASP.net app that needs to have a guaranteed response time?
When under high load that would normally cause us to exceed our desired response time, we want to throw out an appropriate number of requests, so that the rest of the requests can return before the max response time. Throwing out requests based on exceeding a fixed req/s is not viable, as there are other external factors that will control response time that cause the max rps we can safely support to fiarly drastically drift and fluctuate over time.
Its ok if a few requests take a little too long, but we'd like the great majority of them to meet the required response time window. We want to "throw out" the minimal or near minimal number of requests so that we can process the rest of the requests in the allotted response time.
It should account for ASP.Net queuing time, ideally the network request time but that is less important.
We'd also love to do adaptive work, like make a db call if we have plenty of time, but do some computations if we're shorter on time.
Thanks!
SLAs with a guaranteed response time require a bit of work.
First off you need to spend a lot of time profiling your application. You want to understand exactly how it behaves under various load scenarios: light, medium, heavy, crushing.. When doing this profiling step it is going to be critical that it's done on the exact same hardware / software configuration that production uses. Results from one set of hardware have no bearing on results from an even slightly different set of hardware. This isn't just about the servers either; I'm talking routers, switches, cable lengths, hard drives (make/model), everything. Even BIOS revisions on the machines, RAID controllers and any other device in the loop.
While profiling make sure the types of work loads represent an actual slice of what you are going to see. Obviously there are certain load mixes which will execute faster than others.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "throw out an appropriate number of requests". That sounds like you want to drop those requests... which sounds wrong on a number of levels. Doing this usually kills an SLA as being an "outage".
Next, you are going to have to actively monitor your servers for load. If load levels get within a certain percentage of your max then you need to add more hardware to increase capacity.
Another thing, monitoring result times internally is only part of it. You'll need to monitor them from various external locations as well depending on where your clients are.
And that's just about your application. There are other forces at work such as your connection to the Internet. You will need multiple providers with active failover in case one goes down... Or, if possible, go with a solid cloud provider.
Yes, in the last mvcConf one of the speakers compares the performance of various view engines for ASP.NET MVC. I think it was Steven Smith's presentation that did the comparison, but I'm not 100% sure.
You have to keep in mind, however, that ASP.NET will really only play a very minor role in the performance of your app; DB is likely to be your biggest bottle neck.
Hope the video helps.
In the Seam Reference Guide, one can find this paragraph:
We can set a sensible default for the concurrent request timeout (in ms) in components.xml:
<core:manager concurrent-request-timeout="500" />
However, we found that 500 ms is not nearly enough time for most of the cases we had to deal with, especially with the severe restriction seam places on conversation access.
In our application we have a combination of page scoped ajax requests (triggered by various user actions), some global scoped polling notification logic (part of the header, so included in every page) and regular links that invoke actions and/or navigate to other pages.
Therefore, we get the dreaded concurrent access to conversation exception way too often, even without any significant load on the site.
After researching the options for quite a bit, we ended up bumping this value to several seconds (we're debating whether to bump it up to 10s), as none of the recommended solutions seemed able to solve our issue completely (even forcing a global queue for all the ajax requests would still leave us exposed to a user deciding to click a link right when one of our polling calls was in progress). And we'd much rather have the users wait for a second or two instead of getting an error page just because they clicked a link at the wrong moment.
And now to the question: is there something obvious we're missing (like a way to allow concurrent access to conversations and taking care of the needed locking ourselves, for instance :)? How do people solve this problem (ajax requests mixed with user driven interaction) in seam? Disabling all the links on the page while ajax requests are in progress (as suggested by one blog page) is really not a viable option.
Any other suggestions?
TIA,
Andrei
We use 60000 or 120000 (1-2 minutes). Concurrent-request-timeout is designed to avoid deadlocks. Historically we have far more problems with timeouts than deadlocks. A better approach is to use a client-side queue (<a4j:ajaxQueue> if using RichFaces) to serialize and remove duplicate requests as much as possible, then set the timeout high enough to avoid any remaining problems.
There are many serious issues resulting from Seam's concurrent request timeouts:
The issue is the last request gets the ConcurrentRequestTimeoutException. If the user double-clicks or reloads the page, only the last request matters -- why should he get an error?
Usually the ConcurrentRequestTimeoutException is suppressed, and only secondary NullPointerExceptions and #In injection failures are shown, making debugging difficult.
Seam 2.2.1 has a severe problem where transactions, ThreadLocals, and locks may leak after a timeout occurs, especially when used with <spring:spring-transaction/>. Look at SeamPhaseListener.afterRestoreView: there's no finally block to clean up after restoreConversation fails!
In my opinion there are many poor aspects to this design, so it's best to use a much higher timeout and try to avoid the issues.
This is what we have and it works fine for us:
<core:manager concurrent-request-timeout="5000"
conversation-timeout="120000" conversation-id-parameter="cid"
parent-conversation-id-parameter="pid" />
We also use a much higher value for the concurrent-request-timeout.
At least for duplicate events you can use settings in the a4j components to filter and delay them with eventsQueue, requestDelay and ignoreDupResponses=”true”.
(Last point http://docs.jboss.org/seam/2.0.1.GA/reference/en/html/conversations.html )
Can you analyse which types of request are taking a long time? Is there a particular type which you could reduce the request time by doing the "work" asynchronously and getting the update back in your poll?
In my opinion, ajax requests should always complete fairly quickly, then you can calculate a max concurrent request time by (request time * max number of requests likely to be initiated)
I have been involved in building a custum QGIS application in which live data is to be shown on the viewer of the application.
The IPC being used is unix message queues.
The data is to be refreshed at a specified interval say, 3 seconds.
Now the problem that i am facing is that the processing of the data which is to be shown is taking more than 3 seconds,so what i have done is that before the app starts to process data for the next update,the refresh QTimer is stopped and after the data is processed i again restart the QTimer.The app should work in such a way that after an update/refresh(during this refresh the app goes unresponsive) the user should get ample time to continue to work on the app apart from seeing the data being updated.I am able to get acceptable pauses for the user to work-- in one scenario.
But on different OS(RHEL 5.0 to RHEL 5.2) the situation is something different.The timer goes wild and continues to fire without giving any pauses b/w the successive updates thus going into an infinite loop.Handling this update data definitely takes longer than 3 sec,but for that very reason i have stopped-restarted the timer while processing..and the same logic works in one scenario while in other it doesnt.. The other fact that i have observed is that when this quick firing of the timer happens the time taken by the refreshing function to exit is very small abt 300ms so the start-stop of the timer that i have placed at the start-and-end of this function happens in that small time..so before the actual processing of the data finishes,there are 3-4 starts of the timer in queue waiting to be executed and thus the infinite looping problem gets worse from that point for every successive update.
The important thing to note here is that for the same code in one OS the refresh time is shown to be as around 4000ms(the actual processing time taken for the same amount of data) while for the other OS its 300ms.
Maybe this has something to do with newer libs on the updated OS..but I dont know how to debug it because i am not able to get any clues why its happening as such... maybe something related to pthreads has changed b/w the OSs??
So, my query is that is there any way that will assure that some processing in my app is timerised(and which is independent of the OS) without using QTimer as i think that QTimer is not a good option to achieve what i want??
What option can be there?? pthreads or Boost threads? which one would be better if i am to use threads as an alternate??But how can i make sure atleast a 3 second gap b/w successive updates no matter how long the update processing takes?
Kindly help.
Thanks.
If I was trying to get an acceptable, longer-term solution, I would investigate updating your display in a separate thread. In that thread, you could paint the display to an image, updating as often as you desire... although you might want to throttle the thread so it doesn't take all of the processing time available. Then in the UI thread, you could read that image and draw it to screen. That could improve your responsiveness to panning, since you could be displaying different parts of the image. You could update the image every 3 seconds based on a timer (just redraw from the source), or you could have the other thread emit a signal whenever the new data is completely refreshed.