Hi Michael,
Yes, our biggest challenge is the design
of our BRMS (rules, packages, categories etc.). I don’t think compilation
times of several minutes is a problem since we will probably compile new or
modified rules/packages/categories in a verification/staging environment for
testing before moving them to production. Maybe we can queue builds/tests for
resource management (since it is already running in a verification environment)
so the BRMS doesn’t run out of resources. So far, I think the performance
evaluation looks pretty good with no areas needing particular attention. We will
probably know more once we have some real use cases.
Thanks,
Len
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Neale
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007
8:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Re:
Drools and BRMS (60,000+ rules)
Hi Len.
Yes the main challenges I see are to do with the sheer numbers of rules you see
yourself happening, and how to manage that in any sort of BRMS. ie are there
100's of packages, or a few uber packages etc. How do you break it up so its
manageable? etc... even simple things, like if there is a drop down with rule
names - that doesnt' scale to well to that number of rules (in a single
package). We have categories which allow you to break down views into rules
etc.
The other side of the coin is compile time taken and memory used. Good to see
you have done some profiling of it (I saw you PDF) - I haven't had a chance to
load up your project yet but I did do some of my own profiling. Since 4.0.3 the
impact of deserialization and rule packages has been partly addressed.
I am worried that one rule change would require a 5 minute rebuild of an entire
package (is 5 minutes too long? I really don't know how much your rules will
change etc). On the BRMS server, we need to have some background resource
management where we control how many builds/tests are going on so that we dont'
starve the BRMS as resources (so in that sense it becomes a bit like a CI
server, where it detects changes and then builds int he background).
Regarding your profiling so far - nothing seems that surprising - were there
any areas that you think needed particular attention?
Michael.
On Nov 25, 2007 6:43 AM, Carlsen, Len < len.carlsen@ubc.ca> wrote:
We would probably use the existing
server side code and extent the current BRMS client UI, to satisfy our
needs. By designing our BRMS I mostly meant designing the structure of
all our rule domains, rules/packages and facts (courses/learning units).
Len
From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Saturday,
November 24, 2007 1:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Re:
Drools and BRMS (60,000+ rules)
Carlsen, Len wrote:
This is very cool and is exactly what we will need for our new opensource SIS. Once we have designed our BRMS then we will look moreclosely at Drools Solver (especially after the ITC competition).
Are you writting your own BRMS from scratch? Are there any particular
issues with the BRMS at the moment that would warrant this? Maybe you could
work on the BRMS we have now to extend it to satisfy your needs.
Currently, we are using Ad Astra for our course timetabling and examscheduling and it would be good if we could replace that with Solver. Thanks for your interest, Len -----Original Message-----From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey DeSmetSent: Friday, November 23, 2007 5:09 AMTo: rules-users@lists.jboss.orgSubject: [rules-users] Re: Drools and BRMS (60,000+ rules) Mark Proctor wrote:
Carlsen, Len wrote:Other issues are the performance of the Drools Solver and havingthousands of rules compiled, loaded and running. During registrationwe could have thousands of rules executing concurrently. The rulesengine and the BRMS would be services as part of an SOA
infrastructure