[rules-users] Measuring Drools Memory Usage
Mark Proctor
mproctor at codehaus.org
Tue Jul 29 09:55:53 EDT 2008
I've thought about some callback mechanism that is executed when a rule
is no longer true, the problem I have is which variable changed to make
the rule no longer true and how do I expose the bound variables to the
user, especially if the rule is no longer true due to a retraction, and
ofcourse I need to figure our the DRL syntax that makes sense.
I've thought about doing it as a sort of logical closure, so you have to
declare the data:
insertLogicalClosure( new LogicalClosure() {
execute() {.......}
} )
Not sure how to make the data accessible, maybe the user should have to
populate the map. Anyway idea is in the same way that a logical insert
is executed when the rule is true, the logical closure/method is executed.
So if someone has some time and fun, maybe they would work on this and
submit a patch :)
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
> Do you use a stateful session?
>
> Are your measurements before and after you've inserted facts into
> working memory?
>
> Would be helpful to the group to post your use-case source?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Roger
> Tanuatmadja
> *Sent:* 29 July 2008 02:12
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* [rules-users] Measuring Drools Memory Usage
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone attempted to measure the incremental memory usage of
> using Drools? Anyone cares to share their methodology?
>
> I am currently following the following methodology:
> 1. Prevent garbage collection from happening by using large Xms
> Xmx (1024m in my case), a NewRatio of 2 (I am sure other sizes
> will work as well) and verbogegc enabled to confirm that no
> garbage collection is happening.
> 2. Use Runtime.freeMemory before and after fireAllRules and
> measuring the difference.
>
> The problem with my methods so far has been that after a positive
> memory usage (indicating you are using memory), subsequent use
> case (the same one) incurs zero memory usage which is very strange.
>
> So I guess my question is 2 fold: anyone care to share their
> methodology, and can anyone see what's wrong with mine?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080729/92ecc3c4/attachment.html
More information about the rules-users
mailing list