You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/04 15:12:58 UTC

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Hi Martin,

Some feedback you might find useful about this.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or negative
> value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize

We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
being able to find the culprit.

I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
much more reactive.

We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
the size we configured.

Might be useful to spread the word about it.

Thanks for your post on this subject.

-- 
Guillaume

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> The second level cache is disabled now -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5554

Thanks Martin!

-- 
Guillaume

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
The second level cache is disabled now -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5554

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:

> More opinions here ?
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I think this is the right direction. In the long term we should revisit
>> some decisions/relicts of storing pages in Wicket.
>>
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 04/04/2014 03:19 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>
>>> We have also disabled the second level cache for our main application for
>>> the time being.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain
>>> this
>>> in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
>>> If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should
>>> enable
>>> it explicitly.
>>>
>>> What other Wicket devs/users think ?
>>>
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> Some feedback you might find useful about this.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or
>>>>> negative
>>>>> value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize
>>>>>
>>>> We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
>>>> being able to find the culprit.
>>>>
>>>> I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
>>>> much more reactive.
>>>>
>>>> We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
>>>> everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
>>>> because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
>>>> probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
>>>> the size we configured.
>>>>
>>>> Might be useful to spread the word about it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your post on this subject.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
More opinions here ?

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:

> +1
>
> I think this is the right direction. In the long term we should revisit
> some decisions/relicts of storing pages in Wicket.
>
> Sven
>
>
> On 04/04/2014 03:19 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
>> Hi Guillaume,
>>
>> We have also disabled the second level cache for our main application for
>> the time being.
>>
>> Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain
>> this
>> in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
>> If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should
>> enable
>> it explicitly.
>>
>> What other Wicket devs/users think ?
>>
>> Martin Grigorov
>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> Some feedback you might find useful about this.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or
>>>> negative
>>>> value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize
>>>>
>>> We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
>>> being able to find the culprit.
>>>
>>> I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
>>> much more reactive.
>>>
>>> We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
>>> everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
>>> because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
>>> probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
>>> the size we configured.
>>>
>>> Might be useful to spread the word about it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your post on this subject.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Guillaume
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
+1

I think this is the right direction. In the long term we should revisit 
some decisions/relicts of storing pages in Wicket.

Sven

On 04/04/2014 03:19 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> We have also disabled the second level cache for our main application for
> the time being.
>
> Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain this
> in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
> If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should enable
> it explicitly.
>
> What other Wicket devs/users think ?
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Some feedback you might find useful about this.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or negative
>>> value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize
>> We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
>> being able to find the culprit.
>>
>> I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
>> much more reactive.
>>
>> We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
>> everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
>> because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
>> probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
>> the size we configured.
>>
>> Might be useful to spread the word about it.
>>
>> Thanks for your post on this subject.
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume
>>

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain this
> in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
> If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should enable
> it explicitly.

+1.

It might be useful for an application with very few users but I don't
think it makes much difference in this case to use the disk datastore
and it's definitely harmful when you have a lot of users on your app.

-- 
Guillaume

Re: Inefficient org.apache.wicket.pageStore.DefaultPageStore.SerializedPagesCache

Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi Guillaume,

We have also disabled the second level cache for our main application for
the time being.

Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain this
in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should enable
it explicitly.

What other Wicket devs/users think ?

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Smet <gu...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Some feedback you might find useful about this.
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or negative
> > value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize
>
> We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
> being able to find the culprit.
>
> I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
> much more reactive.
>
> We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
> everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
> because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
> probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
> the size we configured.
>
> Might be useful to spread the word about it.
>
> Thanks for your post on this subject.
>
> --
> Guillaume
>