[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-3327) Confusion about the recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability and the resource that configures it
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3327?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry updated WFCORE-3327:
-------------------------------------
Summary: Confusion about the recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability and the resource that configures it (was: Confusing between recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint and the resource that configures it)
> Confusion about the recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability and the resource that configures it
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-3327
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3327
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Domain Management, Remoting
> Affects Versions: 3.0.3.Final
> Reporter: Brian Stansberry
> Assignee: Brian Stansberry
> Fix For: 4.0.0.Beta1
>
>
> The org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability is reported by the /subsystem=remoting resource, but it is the /subsystem=remoting/configuration=endpoint that actually configures it. This is confusing for humans and difficult for tooling like the new provisioning tools.
> The configuration=endpoint child is essentially a singleton and internally it just provides configuration to its parent. Further, if the user does not configure this resource, a default one is added automatically. This child resources is really just a configuration chunk for its parent.
> In the end it is the parent resource that actually provides the capability, by installing a service. It reads its child resource to configure the capability.
> There are a couple possibilities here:
> 1) Simply move the declaration of the capability to the child resource. Per discussion with [~aloubyansky] is seems that solves the tool problem. It leaves the actual situation obscure though, because now a seemingly non-required child resource is the thing that provides a capability that actually will always be present.
> 2) Deprecate that child resource and add a complex attribute to the parent. The child resource continues to exist in the API for compatibility reasons, but simply modifies the attribute on the parent. The cap remains on the parent.
> Note that 2) may require some manipulation of how we handle undefined complex attributes; i.e. that when we resolve them, even if the root attribute is undefined, we need to resolve the fields, in case those have default values, with the resolved parent then including the default field values. That can be tricky though, e.g. in cases of things like the defaulted attribute having requires, or other fields in the complex attribute being required.
> This latter point is relevant because it would be a 'worker' field in a complex attribute that would actually declare the name of the needed io worker capability. That field would have a default value 'default'.
> Perhaps the declaration of the complex attribute itself (i.e. ObjectTypeAttributeDefinition) would need to indicate how things should be handled. That could just be the complex attribute itself has a default value, {"worker"=>"default"}. Or it could be a flag that enables looking at the fields for defaults if the top level attribute is undefined. Or maybe investigation will show this isn't a problem at all.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-9409) mapping runtime attribute of undertow returns different type than described in r-r-d
by Claudio Miranda (JIRA)
Claudio Miranda created WFLY-9409:
-------------------------------------
Summary: mapping runtime attribute of undertow returns different type than described in r-r-d
Key: WFLY-9409
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9409
Project: WildFly
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Web (Undertow)
Reporter: Claudio Miranda
Assignee: Stuart Douglas
Priority: Minor
there is a "mappings" runtime attribute on undertow subsystem at
/host=master/server=server-one/deployment=batch-processing.war/subsystem=undertow/servlet=*:read-resource-description
It reports as a LIST of STRING
{code}
"mappings" => {
"type" => LIST,
"description" => "Servlet mappings",
"expressions-allowed" => false,
"required" => false,
"nillable" => true,
"min-length" => 0L,
"max-length" => 2147483647L,
"value-type" => STRING,
"access-type" => "metric",
"storage" => "runtime"
},
{code}
But the read-resource returns a INT
{code}
/host=master/server=server-one/deployment=helloworld.war/subsystem=undertow/servlet=*:read-resource(include-runtime)
{
"outcome" => "success",
"result" => [{
"address" => [
("host" => "master"),
("server" => "server-one"),
("deployment" => "helloworld.war"),
("subsystem" => "undertow"),
("servlet" => "org.jboss.as.quickstarts.helloworld.HelloWorldServlet")
],
"outcome" => "success",
"result" => {
"mappings" => 0,
"max-request-time" => 0,
"min-request-time" => 0,
"request-count" => 0,
"servlet-class" => "org.jboss.as.quickstarts.helloworld.HelloWorldServlet",
"servlet-name" => "org.jboss.as.quickstarts.helloworld.HelloWorldServlet",
"total-request-time" => 0
}
}]
}
{code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-3327) Confusing between recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint and the resource that configures it
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3327?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Brian Stansberry commented on WFCORE-3327:
------------------------------------------
Despite being a ton more work, I think 2) is likely the way to go here. The 1) solution is somewhat papering over the problem, making something already overly obscure and difficult even more so.
> Confusing between recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint and the resource that configures it
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-3327
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3327
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Domain Management, Remoting
> Affects Versions: 3.0.3.Final
> Reporter: Brian Stansberry
> Assignee: Brian Stansberry
> Fix For: 4.0.0.Beta1
>
>
> The org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability is reported by the /subsystem=remoting resource, but it is the /subsystem=remoting/configuration=endpoint that actually configures it. This is confusing for humans and difficult for tooling like the new provisioning tools.
> The configuration=endpoint child is essentially a singleton and internally it just provides configuration to its parent. Further, if the user does not configure this resource, a default one is added automatically. This child resources is really just a configuration chunk for its parent.
> In the end it is the parent resource that actually provides the capability, by installing a service. It reads its child resource to configure the capability.
> There are a couple possibilities here:
> 1) Simply move the declaration of the capability to the child resource. Per discussion with [~aloubyansky] is seems that solves the tool problem. It leaves the actual situation obscure though, because now a seemingly non-required child resource is the thing that provides a capability that actually will always be present.
> 2) Deprecate that child resource and add a complex attribute to the parent. The child resource continues to exist in the API for compatibility reasons, but simply modifies the attribute on the parent. The cap remains on the parent.
> Note that 2) may require some manipulation of how we handle undefined complex attributes; i.e. that when we resolve them, even if the root attribute is undefined, we need to resolve the fields, in case those have default values, with the resolved parent then including the default field values. That can be tricky though, e.g. in cases of things like the defaulted attribute having requires, or other fields in the complex attribute being required.
> This latter point is relevant because it would be a 'worker' field in a complex attribute that would actually declare the name of the needed io worker capability. That field would have a default value 'default'.
> Perhaps the declaration of the complex attribute itself (i.e. ObjectTypeAttributeDefinition) would need to indicate how things should be handled. That could just be the complex attribute itself has a default value, {"worker"=>"default"}. Or it could be a flag that enables looking at the fields for defaults if the top level attribute is undefined. Or maybe investigation will show this isn't a problem at all.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-3327) Confusing between recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint and the resource that configures it
by Brian Stansberry (JIRA)
Brian Stansberry created WFCORE-3327:
----------------------------------------
Summary: Confusing between recording of the org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint and the resource that configures it
Key: WFCORE-3327
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-3327
Project: WildFly Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Domain Management, Remoting
Affects Versions: 3.0.3.Final
Reporter: Brian Stansberry
Assignee: Brian Stansberry
Fix For: 4.0.0.Beta1
The org.wildfly.remoting.endpoint capability is reported by the /subsystem=remoting resource, but it is the /subsystem=remoting/configuration=endpoint that actually configures it. This is confusing for humans and difficult for tooling like the new provisioning tools.
The configuration=endpoint child is essentially a singleton and internally it just provides configuration to its parent. Further, if the user does not configure this resource, a default one is added automatically. This child resources is really just a configuration chunk for its parent.
In the end it is the parent resource that actually provides the capability, by installing a service. It reads its child resource to configure the capability.
There are a couple possibilities here:
1) Simply move the declaration of the capability to the child resource. Per discussion with [~aloubyansky] is seems that solves the tool problem. It leaves the actual situation obscure though, because now a seemingly non-required child resource is the thing that provides a capability that actually will always be present.
2) Deprecate that child resource and add a complex attribute to the parent. The child resource continues to exist in the API for compatibility reasons, but simply modifies the attribute on the parent. The cap remains on the parent.
Note that 2) may require some manipulation of how we handle undefined complex attributes; i.e. that when we resolve them, even if the root attribute is undefined, we need to resolve the fields, in case those have default values, with the resolved parent then including the default field values. That can be tricky though, e.g. in cases of things like the defaulted attribute having requires, or other fields in the complex attribute being required.
This latter point is relevant because it would be a 'worker' field in a complex attribute that would actually declare the name of the needed io worker capability. That field would have a default value 'default'.
Perhaps the declaration of the complex attribute itself (i.e. ObjectTypeAttributeDefinition) would need to indicate how things should be handled. That could just be the complex attribute itself has a default value, {"worker"=>"default"}. Or it could be a flag that enables looking at the fields for defaults if the top level attribute is undefined. Or maybe investigation will show this isn't a problem at all.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-9408) Wildfly 10 - The cost of creating the first eclipselink EntityManager during deployment is extremelly high due to MBeanServer.getMbeanCount() cost
by Nuno Godinho de Matos (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Nuno Godinho de Matos commented on WFLY-9408:
---------------------------------------------
I have created a pull request.
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/10558
In my oppinion, instead of taking the pull request I am suggesting, I would think it would be good if you could re-evaluate the eclipselink implementation for the get bean server, and re-implement that API that comes from the base bean using the most appropriate approach for the wildfly server platform (whatever the most appropriate approach may be).
> Wildfly 10 - The cost of creating the first eclipselink EntityManager during deployment is extremelly high due to MBeanServer.getMbeanCount() cost
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-9408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9408
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JPA / Hibernate
> Affects Versions: 10.1.0.Final
> Reporter: Nuno Godinho de Matos
> Assignee: Scott Marlow
> Fix For: 11.0.0.Final
>
>
> I have been trying to reduce the deployment of a WAR application.
> One of the greate bottlenecks on the deployment is the cost of getting the first EntityManager instance of eclipselink.
> To try to reduce cost of startup I found myself forced to during @Startup fire a CDI event observed by an @Asynchronous ejb whose only task is to do a dummy entityManager.flush().
> The results I had for the execution time of this observer could go as high as 13 seconds.
> On top of that, I had already noticed while writting an arquillian system test for eclipselink on:
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-8954
> that the cost of starting up elcipselink under wildfly was much much higher than that of Hibernate and OpenJPA.
> With this introduction done let us go to the facts, and they are quite ridiculous.
> I have sampled the deployment of an application from begging to end with a sampling script that took a thread dump every second to analyse where the app is spending deployment time generically.
> Eventually, I reached the eclipselink deployment.
> And I had entries on the log such as:
> DatabaseEntityManagerStarter] - <- StartupDatabaseEntityManagerStarter.observeApplicationReadyLoadEntityManagerEvent {5948 ms} <EJB aync-ejb-thread-pool - 1>
> While sampling why this was happening I got more than 7 straight thread dump samples (more than 7 seconds) where the following stack trace was present:
> {panel}
> at java.security.AccessController.getContext(Unknown Source)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.SecurityActions.getCaller(SecurityActions.java:47)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.getCaller(AbstractOperationContext.java:1138)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.authorizeResource(OperationContextImpl.java:1306)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.authorizeResource(OperationContextImpl.java:128)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.operations.global.ReadResourceDescriptionHandler$CheckResourceAccessHandler.execute(ReadResourceDescriptionHandler.java:429)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.executeStep(AbstractOperationContext.java:890)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.processStages(AbstractOperationContext.java:659)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.executeOperation(AbstractOperationContext.java:370)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.executeOperation(OperationContextImpl.java:1329)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.ModelControllerImpl.internalExecute(ModelControllerImpl.java:400)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.ModelControllerImpl.execute(ModelControllerImpl.java:208)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ResourceAccessControlUtil.getResourceAccess(ResourceAccessControlUtil.java:85)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:51)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.iterate(RootResourceIterator.java:43)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ModelControllerMBeanHelper.getMBeanCount(ModelControllerMBeanHelper.java:125)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ModelControllerMBeanServerPlugin.getMBeanCount(ModelControllerMBeanServerPlugin.java:161)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.PluggableMBeanServerImpl.getMBeanCount(PluggableMBeanServerImpl.java:545)
> ----- Because of the mBeanServer.getMBeanCount():
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[]{mBeanServer, mBeanServer.getMBeanCount(), mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0});
>
>
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.getMBeanServer(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:271)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.serverSpecificRegisterMBean(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:297)
> ---- Will register Managed beans under the prefix: TopLink:Name="
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.jboss.JBossPlatform.serverSpecificRegisterMBean(JBossPlatform.java:147)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.ServerPlatformBase.registerMBean(ServerPlatformBase.java:581)
> ------- this.serverSpecificRegisterMBean();
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.postConnectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:857)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.loginAndDetectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:762)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryProvider.login(EntityManagerFactoryProvider.java:265)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerSetupImpl.deploy(EntityManagerSetupImpl.java:731)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.getAbstractSession(EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.java:205)
> - locked [0x00000000a90d1210] (a org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.createEntityManagerImpl(EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.java:305)
> {panel}
> After chekcing the eclipselink source code associated to line:
> {panel}
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.getMBeanServer(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:271)
> {panel}
> I found the following source code - which I could hardly believe would explain this deployment bottleneck:
> {panel}
> } else {
> // Only a single MBeanServer instance was found
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[]{mBeanServer, mBeanServer.getMBeanCount(), mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0});
> }
> {panel}
> In short, the first eclipselink entity manager cost of creation is a never ending task under wildfly because of how expensive the above log statement is:
> {panel}
> mBeanServer.getMBeanCount()
> {panel}
> I do not know how to interpret this.
> Is the problem that the API should cost ms and it literally takes several seconds to calculate - and the problem is the cost of the API under wildfly.
> Or is it that eclipselink should never have written such a log statement on the first place?
> To address the issue, I have hacked up my local:
> org.jipijapa.eclipselink.WildFlyServerPlatform
> In this class, I have override the getMeabServer API from the base class.
> I Have created a hacked constant:
> {panel}
> /**
> * During deployment, when the first entity manager is created, the
> * application deployment becomes extremelty slow due to the
> * MbeanServer.getbeanCount() access done by eclipselink. This access is on
> * top of all things done only for logging purposes. We completely kill the
> * call to the api.
> */
> private static final int MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE = -999;
> {panel}
> And finally I added an overriden method:
> {panel}
> @Override
> public MBeanServer getMBeanServer() {
> /**
> * This function will attempt to get the MBeanServer via the
> * findMBeanServer spec call. 1) If the return list is null we attempt
> * to retrieve the PlatformMBeanServer (if it exists or is enabled in
> * this security context). 2) If the list of MBeanServers returned is
> * more than one we get the lowest indexed MBeanServer that does not on
> * a null default domain. 3) 333336: we need to wrap JMX calls in
> * doPrivileged blocks 4) fail-fast: if there are any issues with JMX -
> * continue - don't block the deploy()
> */
> // lazy initialize the MBeanServer reference
> if (null == mBeanServer) {
> List<MBeanServer> mBeanServerList = null;
> try {
> if (PrivilegedAccessHelper.shouldUsePrivilegedAccess()) {
> try {
> mBeanServerList = (List<MBeanServer>) AccessController
> .doPrivileged(new PrivilegedExceptionAction() {
> @Override
> public List<MBeanServer> run() {
> return MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null);
> }
> });
> } catch (PrivilegedActionException pae) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER, "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null or empty List returned from privileged MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null)");
> Context initialContext = null;
> try {
> initialContext = new InitialContext(); // the
> // context
> // should be
> // cached
> mBeanServer = (MBeanServer) initialContext.lookup(JMX_JNDI_RUNTIME_REGISTER);
> } catch (NamingException ne) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "failed_to_find_mbean_server", ne);
> }
> }
> } else {
> mBeanServerList = MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null);
> }
> // Attempt to get the first MBeanServer we find - usually there
> // is only one - when agentId == null we return a List of them
> if (null == mBeanServer && (null == mBeanServerList || mBeanServerList.isEmpty())) {
> // Unable to acquire a JMX specification List of MBeanServer
> // instances
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER, "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null or empty List returned from MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null)");
> // Try alternate static method
> if (!PrivilegedAccessHelper.shouldUsePrivilegedAccess()) {
> mBeanServer = ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer();
> if (null == mBeanServer) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null returned from ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer()");
> } else {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[] { mBeanServer, MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE,
> mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0 });
> }
> }
> } else {
> // Use the first MBeanServer by default - there may be
> // multiple domains each with their own MBeanServer
> mBeanServer = mBeanServerList.get(JMX_MBEANSERVER_INDEX_DEFAULT_FOR_MULTIPLE_SERVERS);
> if (mBeanServerList.size() > 1) {
> // There are multiple MBeanServerInstances (usually only
> // JBoss)
> // 328006: WebLogic may also return multiple instances
> // (we need to register the one containing the com.bea
> // tree)
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_encountered_multiple_mbeanserver_instances",
> mBeanServerList.size(), JMX_MBEANSERVER_INDEX_DEFAULT_FOR_MULTIPLE_SERVERS,
> mBeanServer);
> // IE: for JBoss we need to verify we are using the
> // correct MBean server of the two (default, null)
> // Check the domain if it is non-null - avoid using this
> // server
> int index = 0;
> for (MBeanServer anMBeanServer : mBeanServerList) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[] { anMBeanServer, MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE,
> anMBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), index });
> if (null != anMBeanServer.getDefaultDomain()) {
> mBeanServer = anMBeanServer;
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_switching_to_alternate_mbeanserver", mBeanServer,
> index);
> }
> index++;
> }
> } else {
> // Only a single MBeanServer instance was found
> // mBeanServer.getMBeanCount() - This is very slow on
> // wildfly
> // we are disabling this statemnt
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print", new Object[] { mBeanServer,
> MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE, mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0 });
> }
> }
> } catch (Exception e) {
> // TODO: Warning required
> e.printStackTrace();
> }
> }
> return mBeanServer;
> }
> {panel}
> The above code looks extremelly complex to me just to get a MBeanserver in an application server.
> I find it hard to believe that this operation should ever have a code with this many lines of code behind it, but ok.
> As you can see in the code I am pasting the only trick I am putting in place to address the deployment time on my machine is to replace every single mebanserver.getMbeanCoundt() by a "dumb" reference to the constant: MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE.
> Would it possible that the wildflt server platform be tuned to address this issue?
> I think it would be a good Idea if you revise the getMbeanServer api to be as simple as possible for JBOSS/Wildfly - the base eclipselink code make slittle since in my oppinion.
> But you will know best.
> It is also interesting that now when i run the test suite project from wildfly eclipselink actualy manages to be few ms faster than hibernate:
> {panel}
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.EclipseLinkSharedModuleProviderTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.662 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.EclipseLinkSharedModuleProviderTestCase
> This eclipselink test is actually now faster than
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.PersistenceXmlHelperTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.354 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.PersistenceXmlHelperTest
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.WFLY8954BaseTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.685 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.WFLY8954BaseTest
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.hibernate.HibernateJarsInDeploymentTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.714 sec - in
> The hibernate test here loses to the eclipselink test above.
> org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.hibernate.HibernateJarsInDeploymentTestCase
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.openjpa.OpenJPASharedModuleProviderTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.218 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.openjpa.OpenJPASharedModuleProviderTestCase
> {panel}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-9408) Wildfly 10 - The cost of creating the first eclipselink EntityManager during deployment is extremelly high due to MBeanServer.getMbeanCount() cost
by Nuno Godinho de Matos (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Nuno Godinho de Matos commented on WFLY-9408:
---------------------------------------------
The following is the work around I have put in place:
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/commit/d5216cdc45fdd5d13317cdead4ce761...
NOTE:
The branch https://github.com/99sono/wildfly/tree/WFLY-9408 is made from the current wildfly master.
Therefore, this is a branch with the fix for the onsuccess bug.
We are currently using a "jipijapa-eclipselink-11.0.0.Final-SNAPSHOT.jar" that integrates both this bugfix and the bugfix for the on success.
Many thanks for taking this issue under consideration.
Kindest regards.
> Wildfly 10 - The cost of creating the first eclipselink EntityManager during deployment is extremelly high due to MBeanServer.getMbeanCount() cost
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-9408
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-9408
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JPA / Hibernate
> Affects Versions: 10.1.0.Final
> Reporter: Nuno Godinho de Matos
> Assignee: Scott Marlow
> Fix For: 11.0.0.Final
>
>
> I have been trying to reduce the deployment of a WAR application.
> One of the greate bottlenecks on the deployment is the cost of getting the first EntityManager instance of eclipselink.
> To try to reduce cost of startup I found myself forced to during @Startup fire a CDI event observed by an @Asynchronous ejb whose only task is to do a dummy entityManager.flush().
> The results I had for the execution time of this observer could go as high as 13 seconds.
> On top of that, I had already noticed while writting an arquillian system test for eclipselink on:
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-8954
> that the cost of starting up elcipselink under wildfly was much much higher than that of Hibernate and OpenJPA.
> With this introduction done let us go to the facts, and they are quite ridiculous.
> I have sampled the deployment of an application from begging to end with a sampling script that took a thread dump every second to analyse where the app is spending deployment time generically.
> Eventually, I reached the eclipselink deployment.
> And I had entries on the log such as:
> DatabaseEntityManagerStarter] - <- StartupDatabaseEntityManagerStarter.observeApplicationReadyLoadEntityManagerEvent {5948 ms} <EJB aync-ejb-thread-pool - 1>
> While sampling why this was happening I got more than 7 straight thread dump samples (more than 7 seconds) where the following stack trace was present:
> {panel}
> at java.security.AccessController.getContext(Unknown Source)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.SecurityActions.getCaller(SecurityActions.java:47)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.getCaller(AbstractOperationContext.java:1138)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.authorizeResource(OperationContextImpl.java:1306)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.authorizeResource(OperationContextImpl.java:128)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.operations.global.ReadResourceDescriptionHandler$CheckResourceAccessHandler.execute(ReadResourceDescriptionHandler.java:429)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.executeStep(AbstractOperationContext.java:890)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.processStages(AbstractOperationContext.java:659)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.AbstractOperationContext.executeOperation(AbstractOperationContext.java:370)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.OperationContextImpl.executeOperation(OperationContextImpl.java:1329)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.ModelControllerImpl.internalExecute(ModelControllerImpl.java:400)
> at org.jboss.as.controller.ModelControllerImpl.execute(ModelControllerImpl.java:208)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ResourceAccessControlUtil.getResourceAccess(ResourceAccessControlUtil.java:85)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:51)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.doIterate(RootResourceIterator.java:61)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.RootResourceIterator.iterate(RootResourceIterator.java:43)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ModelControllerMBeanHelper.getMBeanCount(ModelControllerMBeanHelper.java:125)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.model.ModelControllerMBeanServerPlugin.getMBeanCount(ModelControllerMBeanServerPlugin.java:161)
> at org.jboss.as.jmx.PluggableMBeanServerImpl.getMBeanCount(PluggableMBeanServerImpl.java:545)
> ----- Because of the mBeanServer.getMBeanCount():
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[]{mBeanServer, mBeanServer.getMBeanCount(), mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0});
>
>
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.getMBeanServer(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:271)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.serverSpecificRegisterMBean(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:297)
> ---- Will register Managed beans under the prefix: TopLink:Name="
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.jboss.JBossPlatform.serverSpecificRegisterMBean(JBossPlatform.java:147)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.ServerPlatformBase.registerMBean(ServerPlatformBase.java:581)
> ------- this.serverSpecificRegisterMBean();
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.postConnectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:857)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.loginAndDetectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:762)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryProvider.login(EntityManagerFactoryProvider.java:265)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerSetupImpl.deploy(EntityManagerSetupImpl.java:731)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.getAbstractSession(EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.java:205)
> - locked [0x00000000a90d1210] (a org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate)
> at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.createEntityManagerImpl(EntityManagerFactoryDelegate.java:305)
> {panel}
> After chekcing the eclipselink source code associated to line:
> {panel}
> at org.eclipse.persistence.platform.server.JMXServerPlatformBase.getMBeanServer(JMXServerPlatformBase.java:271)
> {panel}
> I found the following source code - which I could hardly believe would explain this deployment bottleneck:
> {panel}
> } else {
> // Only a single MBeanServer instance was found
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[]{mBeanServer, mBeanServer.getMBeanCount(), mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0});
> }
> {panel}
> In short, the first eclipselink entity manager cost of creation is a never ending task under wildfly because of how expensive the above log statement is:
> {panel}
> mBeanServer.getMBeanCount()
> {panel}
> I do not know how to interpret this.
> Is the problem that the API should cost ms and it literally takes several seconds to calculate - and the problem is the cost of the API under wildfly.
> Or is it that eclipselink should never have written such a log statement on the first place?
> To address the issue, I have hacked up my local:
> org.jipijapa.eclipselink.WildFlyServerPlatform
> In this class, I have override the getMeabServer API from the base class.
> I Have created a hacked constant:
> {panel}
> /**
> * During deployment, when the first entity manager is created, the
> * application deployment becomes extremelty slow due to the
> * MbeanServer.getbeanCount() access done by eclipselink. This access is on
> * top of all things done only for logging purposes. We completely kill the
> * call to the api.
> */
> private static final int MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE = -999;
> {panel}
> And finally I added an overriden method:
> {panel}
> @Override
> public MBeanServer getMBeanServer() {
> /**
> * This function will attempt to get the MBeanServer via the
> * findMBeanServer spec call. 1) If the return list is null we attempt
> * to retrieve the PlatformMBeanServer (if it exists or is enabled in
> * this security context). 2) If the list of MBeanServers returned is
> * more than one we get the lowest indexed MBeanServer that does not on
> * a null default domain. 3) 333336: we need to wrap JMX calls in
> * doPrivileged blocks 4) fail-fast: if there are any issues with JMX -
> * continue - don't block the deploy()
> */
> // lazy initialize the MBeanServer reference
> if (null == mBeanServer) {
> List<MBeanServer> mBeanServerList = null;
> try {
> if (PrivilegedAccessHelper.shouldUsePrivilegedAccess()) {
> try {
> mBeanServerList = (List<MBeanServer>) AccessController
> .doPrivileged(new PrivilegedExceptionAction() {
> @Override
> public List<MBeanServer> run() {
> return MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null);
> }
> });
> } catch (PrivilegedActionException pae) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER, "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null or empty List returned from privileged MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null)");
> Context initialContext = null;
> try {
> initialContext = new InitialContext(); // the
> // context
> // should be
> // cached
> mBeanServer = (MBeanServer) initialContext.lookup(JMX_JNDI_RUNTIME_REGISTER);
> } catch (NamingException ne) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "failed_to_find_mbean_server", ne);
> }
> }
> } else {
> mBeanServerList = MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null);
> }
> // Attempt to get the first MBeanServer we find - usually there
> // is only one - when agentId == null we return a List of them
> if (null == mBeanServer && (null == mBeanServerList || mBeanServerList.isEmpty())) {
> // Unable to acquire a JMX specification List of MBeanServer
> // instances
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER, "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null or empty List returned from MBeanServerFactory.findMBeanServer(null)");
> // Try alternate static method
> if (!PrivilegedAccessHelper.shouldUsePrivilegedAccess()) {
> mBeanServer = ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer();
> if (null == mBeanServer) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "failed_to_find_mbean_server",
> "null returned from ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer()");
> } else {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[] { mBeanServer, MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE,
> mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0 });
> }
> }
> } else {
> // Use the first MBeanServer by default - there may be
> // multiple domains each with their own MBeanServer
> mBeanServer = mBeanServerList.get(JMX_MBEANSERVER_INDEX_DEFAULT_FOR_MULTIPLE_SERVERS);
> if (mBeanServerList.size() > 1) {
> // There are multiple MBeanServerInstances (usually only
> // JBoss)
> // 328006: WebLogic may also return multiple instances
> // (we need to register the one containing the com.bea
> // tree)
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_encountered_multiple_mbeanserver_instances",
> mBeanServerList.size(), JMX_MBEANSERVER_INDEX_DEFAULT_FOR_MULTIPLE_SERVERS,
> mBeanServer);
> // IE: for JBoss we need to verify we are using the
> // correct MBean server of the two (default, null)
> // Check the domain if it is non-null - avoid using this
> // server
> int index = 0;
> for (MBeanServer anMBeanServer : mBeanServerList) {
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print",
> new Object[] { anMBeanServer, MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE,
> anMBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), index });
> if (null != anMBeanServer.getDefaultDomain()) {
> mBeanServer = anMBeanServer;
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.WARNING, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_switching_to_alternate_mbeanserver", mBeanServer,
> index);
> }
> index++;
> }
> } else {
> // Only a single MBeanServer instance was found
> // mBeanServer.getMBeanCount() - This is very slow on
> // wildfly
> // we are disabling this statemnt
> getAbstractSession().log(SessionLog.FINER, SessionLog.SERVER,
> "jmx_mbean_runtime_services_registration_mbeanserver_print", new Object[] { mBeanServer,
> MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE, mBeanServer.getDefaultDomain(), 0 });
> }
> }
> } catch (Exception e) {
> // TODO: Warning required
> e.printStackTrace();
> }
> }
> return mBeanServer;
> }
> {panel}
> The above code looks extremelly complex to me just to get a MBeanserver in an application server.
> I find it hard to believe that this operation should ever have a code with this many lines of code behind it, but ok.
> As you can see in the code I am pasting the only trick I am putting in place to address the deployment time on my machine is to replace every single mebanserver.getMbeanCoundt() by a "dumb" reference to the constant: MBEAN_SERVER_COUNT_DUMMY_VALUE.
> Would it possible that the wildflt server platform be tuned to address this issue?
> I think it would be a good Idea if you revise the getMbeanServer api to be as simple as possible for JBOSS/Wildfly - the base eclipselink code make slittle since in my oppinion.
> But you will know best.
> It is also interesting that now when i run the test suite project from wildfly eclipselink actualy manages to be few ms faster than hibernate:
> {panel}
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.EclipseLinkSharedModuleProviderTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.662 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.EclipseLinkSharedModuleProviderTestCase
> This eclipselink test is actually now faster than
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.PersistenceXmlHelperTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.354 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.PersistenceXmlHelperTest
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.WFLY8954BaseTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.685 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.eclipselink.wildfly8954.WFLY8954BaseTest
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.hibernate.HibernateJarsInDeploymentTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.714 sec - in
> The hibernate test here loses to the eclipselink test above.
> org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.hibernate.HibernateJarsInDeploymentTestCase
> Running org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.openjpa.OpenJPASharedModuleProviderTestCase
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.218 sec - in org.jboss.as.test.compat.jpa.openjpa.OpenJPASharedModuleProviderTestCase
> {panel}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)
8 years, 7 months