You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de> on 2006/09/11 14:33:54 UTC

Entity Engine Performance

Hi all,

we are currently testing our OFBiz-project on several platforms. The
Entity Engine Performance Test from Webtools is up to now the only
performance test we're doing, everything else is measured "how it feels".
;)

OFBiz runs fine with all platforms (Windows XP, Linux i386, Linux AMD64)
with J2SE 1.5 from Sun. We could not encounter any platform-specific
problems. :) This evening I will test running OFBiz on Solaris 10 with
J2SE 1.5 again, but I don't think there will be any problem. Pure Java
rocks. :)

BTW: Has anybody any ideas what perfomance tests could else be done? We
want to stress OFBiz and I think the best ideas for stressing have the
developers. :)

So, back to the problem: We have OFBiz running on an two-way Opteron 265
(Dual-core, there are four physical processors) with 4 GB of RAM, the
operating system is Linux (2.6.8). PostgreSQL 8.1 runs on this machine as
our database. All works fine, but the Entity Engine Performance Test shows
us poor results compared to other systems we have tested. Running the test
on a Windows XP-box (2.8 GHz Celeron, 2 GB RAM) with PostgreSQL on the
same machine is much faster. Those results are shoking us. We thought the
Opteron-machine would blame the other hosts...

The configuration of the test scenarios in detail (in all scenarios a
version of OFBiz from trunk was used):

Test 1:
Opteron 265 (Dual-Core, two-way, four physical CPUs), 4 GB RAM, U320-SCSI
RAID1, Debian Sarge (Linux 2.6.8, i386), PostgreSQL 8.1 (on the same
host), Java 1.5.0_06
Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/entityengine_opteron.png

Test 2:
2.8 GHz Celeron, 2 GB RAM, single IDE-drive, Windows XP, PostgreSQL 8.1
(on the same host), Java 1.5.0_06
Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/entityengine-windows.png

Test 3:
OFBiz on an Athlon X2 4200+ (two physical cpus), 2 GB RAM, single
SATA-drive, Debian Sid (Linux 2.6.17.13, AMD64), PostgreSQL 8.1 (see
below), Java 1.5.0_08
PostgreSQL 8.1 on a Sun Ultra 5 (USIIi 400 MHz), 512 MB RAM, single
UW-SCSI-drive, Ubuntu Dapper (Linux 2.6.17.11)
Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/entityengine_ultra5.png

On all machines there were no bigger jobs during the tests and no other
users were using OFBiz. On all machines the except the Windows host build
405 and 407 of the PostgreSQL JDBC3-driver were tested (with the same
results). We have even tried to optimized the PostgreSQL configuration on
the Opteron but this had no effect. All other test scenarios blame our
Opteron...

We think the problem is not PostgreSQL, because we've tried different
configuration options and the postmaster processes on the Opteron are just
idling around. Has anybody an idea what we could do? Do you need more
information?

TIA

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi.

well, on Friday I did a new run and the results were as expected.
Nothing has been altered - perhaps the server needed some time
to reach operating temperature. ;)

The result:
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/entity_opteron_good.png

Thanks for all your replies and have a nice weekend.

Best regards,
Fabian.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Entity-Engine-Performance-tf2252097.html#a6347427
Sent from the OFBiz - User forum at Nabble.com.


Re: OFBiz (today's trunk version) on Solaris 10/Sparc

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi all,

the script is ready. I had some spare time on work. ;)

Please tell me, whether the output is ok. The output will be send to
ofbiz-dev by the script. If anyone else would like to run those builds,
I'll send the script (ask by mail, e.g.) or I could upload it to the wiki.

The script is a bash-skript, which uses sendmail to compose the email
and scp for uploading the log files.

----------- *snip*

Hi OFBiz Dev,
this is the script for testing Apache OFBiz automatically. If you
see any strange errors, please reply to this email or post the issue
to this list, thank you very much. If you want to use this script on
your own for testing Apache OFBiz, feel free to ask me for it.

------------------------------

The script was run on:
        SunOS moloch-05.moloch-rz 5.10 Generic_118833-17 sun4u sparc
SUNW,Ultra-60

Installed JDK:
	java version "1.5.0_06"
	Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-b05)
	Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_06-b05, mixed mode, sharing)

Starting time was:
        Tue Sep 12 17:26:06 CEST 2006

------------------------------


Starting SVN Update... success
Starting refresh... success
Starting run-install-seed... success
Starting run-tests... success

------------------------------

End time was:
	Tue Sep 12 18:02:23 CEST 2006

The log files are availiable here:
	http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/build-logs/2006-09-12_refresh.log.gz
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/build-logs/2006-09-12_run-install-seed.log.gz
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/build-logs/2006-09-12_run-tests.log.gz
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/build-logs/2006-09-12_svn.log.gz

------------------------------

Best regards,
	Fabian Gorsler.

----------- Pasted

Best regards,
Fabian Gorsler.

Re: OFBiz (today's trunk version) on Solaris 10/Sparc

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi Jacopo,

> It would be great!
> +1

ok, I'll write the script this weekend and automatic testing will be done
each sunday.

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: OFBiz (today's trunk version) on Solaris 10/Sparc

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Hi Fabian,

Fabian Gorsler wrote:
> 
> I don't know whether a Solaris-machine is used for tests of OFBiz, but if
> you'd like, I'll write a script for perfoming those tests weekly or
> monthly on the trunk-version and posting them to this list. What do you
> think?
> 

It would be great!
+1

Thanks

Jacopo


> HTH
> 
> Best regards,
> Fabian.
> 


OFBiz (today's trunk version) on Solaris 10/Sparc (was: Re: Entity Engine Performance)

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi Walter,
Hi list,

here are the results from ant run-install-seed (I've modificated build.xml
in order to let run-install-seed depend on run-install.) and ant
run-tests. I've used Derby as database.

Machine (uname -a):
SunOS sunny 5.10 Generic_118833-17 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60

JVM (java -version):
java version "1.5.0_06"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_06-b05, mixed mode, sharing)

Logs:
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/20060912-log-install_seed.txt
http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/20060912-log-run_tests.txt

I don't know whether a Solaris-machine is used for tests of OFBiz, but if
you'd like, I'll write a script for perfoming those tests weekly or
monthly on the trunk-version and posting them to this list. What do you
think?

HTH

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi Walter,

> We've seen our best performance in using CentOS 4.4 (which is basically
> RHEL) and JDK 1.4.12. and running MySQL separately on a FreeBSD server.

thanks for the information. Do you have any idea where the problem comes
from? Could you tell me which kernel, glibc and machine configuration you
have used to use on your CentOS-machine? Perhaps we can track this issue
down a little bit.

> While we have successfully tested with Java5, if you read between the
> lines, Java5 is considerably slower than the upcoming Java6.

Up to now I haven't spend much time on Java 6. Thanks for the advice.

> I spent two day fiddling with OpenSolaris and OfBiz, and had errors tossed
> just with a clean install and ant run-install. Hope you have better luck
> with Solaris than I did.

I have already had OFBiz running on a Solaris 10/Sparc host and there were
no problems with J2SE 1.5. Did you run OFBiz with OpenSolaris on x86 or
Sparc?

Best regards,
Fabian Gorsler.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Walter Vaughan <wv...@steelerubber.com>.
Fabian Gorsler wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> we are currently testing our OFBiz-project on several platforms. The
> Entity Engine Performance Test from Webtools is up to now the only
> performance test we're doing, everything else is measured "how it feels".
> ;)

We're just getting started with the framework, and I spent what amounts to 
chasing my tail for several weeks working on this issue last month.

We've seen our best performance in using CentOS 4.4 (which is basically RHEL) 
and JDK 1.4.12. and running MySQL separately on a FreeBSD server.

While we have successfully tested with Java5, if you read between the lines, 
Java5 is considerably slower than the upcoming Java6.

I spent two day fiddling with OpenSolaris and OfBiz, and had errors tossed just 
with a clean install and ant run-install. Hope you have better luck with Solaris 
than I did. The hardware might have been the culprit, but I finally had to 
settle on something I knew we could admin.

--
Walter

Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi David,

> I don't have anything specific, unfortunately, it was just a general
> suggestion.

ok, I'll look out if I find a nice SQL file for further tests.

But on the Opteron another, about 2.5 GB big, database runs with
PostgreSQL without any performance problems and because of that I think
everything is fine with the database.

Thanks for your answer.

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by David Welton <da...@gmail.com>.
> up to now I haven't done that. Do you have a link for me in order to be
> sure to run the test you mean? TIA

I don't have anything specific, unfortunately, it was just a general suggestion.

-- 
David N. Welton
 - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
 - http://www.dedasys.com/

Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi David,

> Have you run actual postgresql performance tests on each one to be
> sure you can eliminate that possibility?

up to now I haven't done that. Do you have a link for me in order to be
sure to run the test you mean? TIA

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by David Welton <da...@gmail.com>.
> We think the problem is not PostgreSQL, because we've tried different
> configuration options and the postmaster processes on the Opteron are just
> idling around. Has anybody an idea what we could do? Do you need more
> information?

Have you run actual postgresql performance tests on each one to be
sure you can eliminate that possibility?

-- 
David N. Welton
 - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
 - http://www.dedasys.com/

Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
The entitycache information is nice and all, but to isolate a problem  
like this a lot more information is needed. You could try sending it  
here and see if people will comment, but you might have more success  
reading comments about performance and understanding the various  
factors and then you'll be able to see the problem(s) as you're  
looking into things.

For the cache: the more important ones are the configuration and  
source caches, like ftl and bsh files, and the various widgets and so  
on.

-David


On Sep 19, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Vijay Korimilli wrote:

>
> I did do JMeter performance tests
> http://www.nabble.com/Ofbiz-caching---JMeter-Performance-results-on- 
> Ofbiz-eCommerce-store-tf2290974.html
> There is a correction to the thread, we are using the following  
> hardware:
> dual Opteron 248. Cent OS, The OS is 64bits, 4 GB RAM and U320  
> SCSIs, JVM -
> 1.4.2_08
> The database server is mysql 5.0
>
> I am still chasing the performance problem for our Ofbiz server. I am
> assuming the benchmark test results for such hardware are not upto
> expectations.
>
> If anyone has any specific suggestions, it would be of great help.
>
> In the cache management tool, I see the following (this is random
> observation, and not particularly after the tests):
> entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyAndUserLogin 0 0 57/57/0/0 0/0  
> 0 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyMailer 35 40 77/73/0/4 0/0 0 0  
> true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyProductInfo 2 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0  
> 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProdCatalogCategory 1 5,443  
> 31/16/0/15 0/0 0
> 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProdCatalogRole 20 14 41/40/0/1 0/0  
> 0 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.Product 0 156 1,403/1,403/0/0 0/0 0  
> 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAndCategoryAndAttribute 1 456
> 1,693/1,693/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAndProductAttribute 1 3,162
> 3,430/3,430/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAssoc 962 10,602  
> 5,331/3,630/0/1,701
> 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAttribute 10 40 199/179/0/20  
> 0/0 0 0
> true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategory 0 46 95/95/0/0 0/0  
> 0 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryDigiContentType 0 1  
> 59/59/0/0
> 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryMember 451 484
> 1,894/1,400/0/494 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryRollup 6 1,708  
> 71/41/0/30 0/0
> 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductContent 2,026 887  
> 7,805/5,932/0/1,873
> 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDetailAndProductCategory 0 30
> 919/919/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDigitalContent 2 8 13/8/0/5  
> 0/0 0 0
> true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDigitalContentType 1 11  
> 9/5/0/4 0/0 0
> 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductFeatureAndAppl 479 707
> 2,660/1,810/0/850 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductPrice 1,562 12,862
> 11,646/7,386/0/4,260 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductPriceType 1 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0  
> 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductReview 1,560 12,370
> 11,630/7,376/0/4,254 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreCatalog 1 4,036 8/5/0/3  
> 0/0 0 0
> true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreGroup 1 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0  
> 0 true
> Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStorePromoAppl 1 349  
> 89/45/0/44 0/0 0
> 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreSurveyAppl 2 6,459  
> 40/22/0/18
> 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductType 1 12 39/20/0/19
> entitycache.entity.default.Product 1,417 32,876 7,342/3,517/0/3,825  
> 2,085/29
> 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity.default.ProductAttribute 16 5,472 215/15/0/200  
> 0/41 0 0
> true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity.default.ProductCategory 59 20,837 814/58/0/756  
> 0/0 0 0
> true Elements  Edit  Clear
> entitycache.entity.default.ProductFacility 1,560 16,622  
> 1,561/1,561/0/0 0/0
> 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear
>
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay.
>
>
>
>
> Fabian Gorsler wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>> In general the entity engine performance test page in webtools is  
>>> not
>>> a good predictor for web site performance because it is not really
>>> similar in any way to what happens in real-world use of an
>>> application.
>>
>> that's totally correct, but we just wanted to see anything on how  
>> OFBiz
>> performs. At least we know now, that something is strange with that
>> machine, because creating instances of e.g. HashMaps is slower and it
>> seems to be that each method call on this machine takes more time  
>> than on
>> other environments. Perhaps we should upgrade the JVM. We'll see.
>>
>>> The best thing to do is have a separate box (or a number of separate
>>> boxes...) run something like JMeter to do page requests and sessions
>>> that are similar to real world usage. There are various open source
>>> and commercial tools for this and for any performance test this is
>>> the only way to go.
>>
>> Yes, that is our current plan. Yesterday I've read a bit about The
>> Grinder, which was proposed on this list a few days ago, and today  
>> I want
>> to try it.
>>
>>> If you plan on having any sort of load on your servers doing this
>>> sort of thing should be considered necessary. If you find  
>>> performance
>>> problems explaining and fixing them requires a lot of knowledge,
>>> basically about every piece of software and hardware involved.  
>>> With a
>>> bit of optimization you can often dramatically improve results  
>>> though...
>>
>> Exactly that's the point why I've posted the issue to this list. I  
>> hope
>> I'll find the problem. If I can say I've found it, I'll post my  
>> results.
>>
>> Thanks for your answer.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fabian.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Entity-Engine- 
> Performance-tf2252097.html#a6393475
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Vijay Korimilli <vk...@gmail.com>.
I did do JMeter performance tests
http://www.nabble.com/Ofbiz-caching---JMeter-Performance-results-on-Ofbiz-eCommerce-store-tf2290974.html
There is a correction to the thread, we are using the following hardware:
dual Opteron 248. Cent OS, The OS is 64bits, 4 GB RAM and U320 SCSIs, JVM -
1.4.2_08
The database server is mysql 5.0

I am still chasing the performance problem for our Ofbiz server. I am
assuming the benchmark test results for such hardware are not upto
expectations.

If anyone has any specific suggestions, it would be of great help.

In the cache management tool, I see the following (this is random
observation, and not particularly after the tests):
entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyAndUserLogin 0 0 57/57/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyMailer 35 40 77/73/0/4 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.PartyProductInfo 2 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProdCatalogCategory 1 5,443 31/16/0/15 0/0 0
0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProdCatalogRole 20 14 41/40/0/1 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.Product 0 156 1,403/1,403/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAndCategoryAndAttribute 1 456
1,693/1,693/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAndProductAttribute 1 3,162
3,430/3,430/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAssoc 962 10,602 5,331/3,630/0/1,701
0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductAttribute 10 40 199/179/0/20 0/0 0 0
true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategory 0 46 95/95/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryDigiContentType 0 1 59/59/0/0
0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryMember 451 484
1,894/1,400/0/494 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductCategoryRollup 6 1,708 71/41/0/30 0/0
0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductContent 2,026 887 7,805/5,932/0/1,873
0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDetailAndProductCategory 0 30
919/919/0/0 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDigitalContent 2 8 13/8/0/5 0/0 0 0
true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductDigitalContentType 1 11 9/5/0/4 0/0 0
0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductFeatureAndAppl 479 707
2,660/1,810/0/850 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductPrice 1,562 12,862
11,646/7,386/0/4,260 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductPriceType 1 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductReview 1,560 12,370
11,630/7,376/0/4,254 0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreCatalog 1 4,036 8/5/0/3 0/0 0 0
true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreGroup 1 0 3/3/0/0 0/0 0 0 true
Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStorePromoAppl 1 349 89/45/0/44 0/0 0
0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductStoreSurveyAppl 2 6,459 40/22/0/18
0/0 0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity-list.default.ProductType 1 12 39/20/0/19 
entitycache.entity.default.Product 1,417 32,876 7,342/3,517/0/3,825 2,085/29
0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity.default.ProductAttribute 16 5,472 215/15/0/200 0/41 0 0
true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity.default.ProductCategory 59 20,837 814/58/0/756 0/0 0 0
true Elements  Edit  Clear  
entitycache.entity.default.ProductFacility 1,560 16,622 1,561/1,561/0/0 0/0
0 0 true Elements  Edit  Clear 


Thanks,
Vijay.




Fabian Gorsler wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> 
>> In general the entity engine performance test page in webtools is not
>> a good predictor for web site performance because it is not really
>> similar in any way to what happens in real-world use of an
>> application.
> 
> that's totally correct, but we just wanted to see anything on how OFBiz
> performs. At least we know now, that something is strange with that
> machine, because creating instances of e.g. HashMaps is slower and it
> seems to be that each method call on this machine takes more time than on
> other environments. Perhaps we should upgrade the JVM. We'll see.
> 
>> The best thing to do is have a separate box (or a number of separate
>> boxes...) run something like JMeter to do page requests and sessions
>> that are similar to real world usage. There are various open source
>> and commercial tools for this and for any performance test this is
>> the only way to go.
> 
> Yes, that is our current plan. Yesterday I've read a bit about The
> Grinder, which was proposed on this list a few days ago, and today I want
> to try it.
> 
>> If you plan on having any sort of load on your servers doing this
>> sort of thing should be considered necessary. If you find performance
>> problems explaining and fixing them requires a lot of knowledge,
>> basically about every piece of software and hardware involved. With a
>> bit of optimization you can often dramatically improve results though...
> 
> Exactly that's the point why I've posted the issue to this list. I hope
> I'll find the problem. If I can say I've found it, I'll post my results.
> 
> Thanks for your answer.
> 
> Best regards,
> Fabian.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Entity-Engine-Performance-tf2252097.html#a6393475
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by Fabian Gorsler <fa...@der-moloch.de>.
Hi David,


> In general the entity engine performance test page in webtools is not
> a good predictor for web site performance because it is not really
> similar in any way to what happens in real-world use of an
> application.

that's totally correct, but we just wanted to see anything on how OFBiz
performs. At least we know now, that something is strange with that
machine, because creating instances of e.g. HashMaps is slower and it
seems to be that each method call on this machine takes more time than on
other environments. Perhaps we should upgrade the JVM. We'll see.

> The best thing to do is have a separate box (or a number of separate
> boxes...) run something like JMeter to do page requests and sessions
> that are similar to real world usage. There are various open source
> and commercial tools for this and for any performance test this is
> the only way to go.

Yes, that is our current plan. Yesterday I've read a bit about The
Grinder, which was proposed on this list a few days ago, and today I want
to try it.

> If you plan on having any sort of load on your servers doing this
> sort of thing should be considered necessary. If you find performance
> problems explaining and fixing them requires a lot of knowledge,
> basically about every piece of software and hardware involved. With a
> bit of optimization you can often dramatically improve results though...

Exactly that's the point why I've posted the issue to this list. I hope
I'll find the problem. If I can say I've found it, I'll post my results.

Thanks for your answer.

Best regards,
Fabian.


Re: Entity Engine Performance

Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
In general the entity engine performance test page in webtools is not  
a good predictor for web site performance because it is not really  
similar in any way to what happens in real-world use of an  
application. It only runs in a single thread (so multiple processors  
won't help much), it does a bunch of pretty bogus, repetitive data  
operations with no presentation, which is also very different from  
real application usage.

The best thing to do is have a separate box (or a number of separate  
boxes...) run something like JMeter to do page requests and sessions  
that are similar to real world usage. There are various open source  
and commercial tools for this and for any performance test this is  
the only way to go.

If you plan on having any sort of load on your servers doing this  
sort of thing should be considered necessary. If you find performance  
problems explaining and fixing them requires a lot of knowledge,  
basically about every piece of software and hardware involved. With a  
bit of optimization you can often dramatically improve results though...

-David


On Sep 11, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Fabian Gorsler wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> we are currently testing our OFBiz-project on several platforms. The
> Entity Engine Performance Test from Webtools is up to now the only
> performance test we're doing, everything else is measured "how it  
> feels".
> ;)
>
> OFBiz runs fine with all platforms (Windows XP, Linux i386, Linux  
> AMD64)
> with J2SE 1.5 from Sun. We could not encounter any platform-specific
> problems. :) This evening I will test running OFBiz on Solaris 10 with
> J2SE 1.5 again, but I don't think there will be any problem. Pure Java
> rocks. :)
>
> BTW: Has anybody any ideas what perfomance tests could else be  
> done? We
> want to stress OFBiz and I think the best ideas for stressing have the
> developers. :)
>
> So, back to the problem: We have OFBiz running on an two-way  
> Opteron 265
> (Dual-core, there are four physical processors) with 4 GB of RAM, the
> operating system is Linux (2.6.8). PostgreSQL 8.1 runs on this  
> machine as
> our database. All works fine, but the Entity Engine Performance  
> Test shows
> us poor results compared to other systems we have tested. Running  
> the test
> on a Windows XP-box (2.8 GHz Celeron, 2 GB RAM) with PostgreSQL on the
> same machine is much faster. Those results are shoking us. We  
> thought the
> Opteron-machine would blame the other hosts...
>
> The configuration of the test scenarios in detail (in all scenarios a
> version of OFBiz from trunk was used):
>
> Test 1:
> Opteron 265 (Dual-Core, two-way, four physical CPUs), 4 GB RAM,  
> U320-SCSI
> RAID1, Debian Sarge (Linux 2.6.8, i386), PostgreSQL 8.1 (on the same
> host), Java 1.5.0_06
> Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/ 
> entityengine_opteron.png
>
> Test 2:
> 2.8 GHz Celeron, 2 GB RAM, single IDE-drive, Windows XP, PostgreSQL  
> 8.1
> (on the same host), Java 1.5.0_06
> Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/entityengine- 
> windows.png
>
> Test 3:
> OFBiz on an Athlon X2 4200+ (two physical cpus), 2 GB RAM, single
> SATA-drive, Debian Sid (Linux 2.6.17.13, AMD64), PostgreSQL 8.1 (see
> below), Java 1.5.0_08
> PostgreSQL 8.1 on a Sun Ultra 5 (USIIi 400 MHz), 512 MB RAM, single
> UW-SCSI-drive, Ubuntu Dapper (Linux 2.6.17.11)
> Results: http://www.der-moloch.de/files/ofbiz-ml/ 
> entityengine_ultra5.png
>
> On all machines there were no bigger jobs during the tests and no  
> other
> users were using OFBiz. On all machines the except the Windows host  
> build
> 405 and 407 of the PostgreSQL JDBC3-driver were tested (with the same
> results). We have even tried to optimized the PostgreSQL  
> configuration on
> the Opteron but this had no effect. All other test scenarios blame our
> Opteron...
>
> We think the problem is not PostgreSQL, because we've tried different
> configuration options and the postmaster processes on the Opteron  
> are just
> idling around. Has anybody an idea what we could do? Do you need more
> information?
>
> TIA
>
> Best regards,
> Fabian.
>