6:32 p.m.
Hi,
I'm experimenting with asimple Fusion application. I'm using
fireUntilHalt() to start the engine.
When I start my application it uses nearly 50% of my CPU without any
facts being insert. This remains while my application is idle. Why is that??
My machine has a 2Duo T9300 with 2,5GHz an JDK6u21.
Thanks for your help. :)
Tina
6:06 a.m.
Hi!
fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
50%. It's by design like this.
You can:
- Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
- Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of the
ruleflow in the loop:
while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
Threads.sleep(20);
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
with both methods you get a low cpu load.
bye
juergen
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:40 a.m.
Thank you, Jürgen.
fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so
it's
50%. It's by design like this.
Where can I find more techincal/performance specification about drools?
You can:
- Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
- Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of the
ruleflow in the loop:
while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
Threads.sleep(20);
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
with both methods you get a low cpu load.
I'm permanently receiving packages of
facts to be insert. Is it also
possible call fireAllRules after inserting the facts of a package?
Thank you! :)
Tina
7:02 a.m.
You can call fireAllRules after every event changing the state of the facts
or of the ruleflow. When you do event stream processing and use the time
inside your rules, the time is a change event too. So you have to use
fireUntilHalt if you can't afford to have the small pauses using
fireAllRules/Sleep in a loop.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
11:13 a.m.
You can call fireAllRules after every event changing the state of the
facts
or of the ruleflow.
So it's not recommended to insert more than one event and
then calling
fireAllRules()?!
When you do event stream processing and use the time
inside your rules, the time is a change event too. So you have to use
fireUntilHalt if you can't afford to have the small pauses using
fireAllRules/Sleep in a loop.
Currently, I'm using the stream processing mode.
But I'm not using
windows, I'm just using temporal operations.
Would you recommend me to use fireAlleRules+Sleep if I want to use
fireAllRules or can I also use it without the sleep?
Thanks. :)
Tina
11:41 a.m.
I think you should not worry about the CPU % in the first place. If there's
nothing
else to do, a serf might very well busy himself by -- looking for work ;-)
More technically, scheduling as it is frequently used in an operating system
will
assign the CPU according to a strategy, which "punishes" processes
monopolizing
the CPU by not doing any I/O. This means that any such process is downgraded
in its scheduling priority, whereas "well-behaved" processed will be
upgraded
due to their wait times because of I/O.
Inserting one fact and calling fireAllRules may be a good strategy, but it
isn't
essential for achieving anything except short reaction time or results not
influenced or muddled by other facts. (For the latter, your rules may have
to
take precautions!)
-W
On 25 October 2010 18:13, Tina Vießmann <tviessmann(a)stud.hs-bremen.de>wrote:
> You can call fireAllRules after every event changing the state of the
facts
> or of the ruleflow.
So it's not recommended to insert more than one event and then calling
fireAllRules()?!
> When you do event stream processing and use the time
> inside your rules, the time is a change event too. So you have to use
> fireUntilHalt if you can't afford to have the small pauses using
> fireAllRules/Sleep in a loop.
Currently, I'm using the stream processing mode. But I'm not using
windows, I'm just using temporal operations.
Would you recommend me to use fireAlleRules+Sleep if I want to use
fireAllRules or can I also use it without the sleep?
Thanks. :)
Tina
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
1:53 p.m.
Note that the 100% CPU issue with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1 version of
Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to fire. I saw
this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
Norman
----- Original Message ----
From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting no
facts results in 50% CPU usage
Hi!
fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
50%. It's by design like this.
You can:
- Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
- Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of the
ruleflow in the loop:
while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
Threads.sleep(20);
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
with both methods you get a low cpu load.
bye
juergen
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2:17 p.m.
This is clearly a regression as Drools should be not be using busy
waits in fireUntilHalt(). It should use monitors and locks as it was
doing before.
Can anyone open a JIRA? also, if anyone would be willing to take
investigate and fix this one, it would really help. Otherwise, I will
add it to my queue.
Thanks,
Edson
2010/10/25 Norman C <rent_my_time(a)yahoo.com>:
Note that the 100% CPU issue with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1 version of
Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to fire. I saw
this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
Norman
----- Original Message ----
From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting no
facts results in 50% CPU usage
Hi!
fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
50%. It's by design like this.
You can:
- Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
- Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of the
ruleflow in the loop:
while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
Threads.sleep(20);
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
with both methods you get a low cpu load.
bye
juergen
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
2:23 p.m.
Luckily just stumbled upon this mail...
You can take a look at
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/fireUntilHalt-and-OSGi-C
PU-load-td1022352.html
where I already provided a minimal example (don't know if it covers all
cases) and tracked it down to missedNotifyAll in DefaultAgenda
cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:17
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting
no facts results in 50% CPU usage
This is clearly a regression as Drools should be not be using busy
waits in fireUntilHalt(). It should use monitors and locks as it was
doing before.
Can anyone open a JIRA? also, if anyone would be willing to take
investigate and fix this one, it would really help. Otherwise, I will
add it to my queue.
Thanks,
Edson
2010/10/25 Norman C <rent_my_time(a)yahoo.com>:
Note that the 100% CPU issue with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1
version of
Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to
fire. I
saw
this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
Norman
----- Original Message ----
From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
inserting no
facts results in 50% CPU usage
Hi!
fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
50%. It's by design like this.
You can:
- Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
- Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of
the
ruleflow in the loop:
while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
Threads.sleep(20);
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
with both methods you get a low cpu load.
bye
juergen
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using-fi
reUntilHalt-and-inserting-no-facts-results-in-50-CPU-usage-tp1760370p1761821
.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2:30 p.m.
Do you have a solution/patch for it?
Edson
2010/10/25 mardo <mardo(a)abicola.de>:
Luckily just stumbled upon this mail...
You can take a look at
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/fireUntilHalt-and-OSGi-C
PU-load-td1022352.html
where I already provided a minimal example (don't know if it covers all
cases) and tracked it down to missedNotifyAll in DefaultAgenda
cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:17
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting
no facts results in 50% CPU usage
This is clearly a regression as Drools should be not be using busy
waits in fireUntilHalt(). It should use monitors and locks as it was
doing before.
Can anyone open a JIRA? also, if anyone would be willing to take
investigate and fix this one, it would really help. Otherwise, I will
add it to my queue.
Thanks,
Edson
2010/10/25 Norman C <rent_my_time(a)yahoo.com>:
>
>
> Note that the 100% CPU issue with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1
version of
> Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to fire. I
saw
> this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
>
> Norman
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de>
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
inserting no
> facts results in 50% CPU usage
>
>
> Hi!
>
> fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
> 50%. It's by design like this.
>
> You can:
> - Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
>
> - Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of
the
> ruleflow in the loop:
>
> while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
> Threads.sleep(20);
> ksession.fireAllRules();
> }
>
> with both methods you get a low cpu load.
>
> bye
>
> juergen
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using-fi
reUntilHalt-and-inserting-no-facts-results-in-50-CPU-usage-tp1760370p1761821
.html
>
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
2:52 p.m.
Unfortunately no, I just had a look how it was implemented (like
http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/thread-signaling.html#missedsig
nals) -> missed signals and noticed that it somehow didn't work as intended.
But no idea how to directly correct it, sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:30
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting
no facts results in 50% CPU usage
Do you have a solution/patch for it?
Edson
2010/10/25 mardo <mardo(a)abicola.de>:
reUntilHalt-and-inserting-no-facts-results-in-50-CPU-usage-tp1760370p1761821
> .html
> >> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > > > >>
_______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Luckily just stumbled upon this mail...
You can take a look at
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/fireUntilHalt-and-OSGi-C
PU-load-td1022352.html
where I already provided a minimal example (don't know if it covers all
cases) and tracked it down to missedNotifyAll in DefaultAgenda
cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:17
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
inserting
no facts results in 50% CPU usage
This is clearly a regression as Drools should be not be using busy
waits in fireUntilHalt(). It should use monitors and locks as it was
doing before.
Can anyone open a JIRA? also, if anyone would be willing to take
investigate and fix this one, it would really help. Otherwise, I will
add it to my queue.
Thanks,
Edson
2010/10/25 Norman C <rent_my_time(a)yahoo.com>:
> Note that the 100% CPU issue
with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1
version of
> Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to fire. I
saw
> this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
> Norman
>
----- Original Message ----
> From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de > To:
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
inserting no
> facts results in 50% CPU usage
> Hi!
> fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a
dualcore, so it's
> 50%. It's by design like this.
> You can:
> - Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
> - Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check
for the end of
the
> ruleflow in the loop:
> while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
> Threads.sleep(20);
> ksession.fireAllRules();
> }
> with both methods you get a low cpu load.
> bye
> juergen
> --
> View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using-fi
3:02 p.m.
No worries, it is a good starting point anyway. Hopefully someone
can continue from there or I will eventually fix it. Just a lot of
stuff in my plate already that have priority over this.
Edson
2010/10/25 mardo <mardo(a)abicola.de>:
Unfortunately no, I just had a look how it was implemented (like
http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/thread-signaling.html#missedsig
nals) -> missed signals and noticed that it somehow didn't work as intended.
But no idea how to directly correct it, sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:30
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and inserting
no facts results in 50% CPU usage
Do you have a solution/patch for it?
Edson
2010/10/25 mardo <mardo(a)abicola.de>:
> Luckily just stumbled upon this mail...
>
> You can take a look at
>
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/fireUntilHalt-and-OSGi-C
> PU-load-td1022352.html
>
> where I already provided a minimal example (don't know if it covers all
> cases) and tracked it down to missedNotifyAll in DefaultAgenda
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
> Sent: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 21:17
> To: Rules Users List
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
inserting
> no facts results in 50% CPU usage
>
> This is clearly a regression as Drools should be not be using busy
> waits in fireUntilHalt(). It should use monitors and locks as it was
> doing before.
>
> Can anyone open a JIRA? also, if anyone would be willing to take
> investigate and fix this one, it would really help. Otherwise, I will
> add it to my queue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edson
>
> 2010/10/25 Norman C <rent_my_time(a)yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>> Note that the 100% CPU issue with fireUntiHalt is only with the 5.1
> version of
>> Drools. In 5.0.x, CPU is close to 0% when there are no rules to fire. I
> saw
>> this when I was testing upgrading to 5.1.
>>
>> Norman
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: jschmied <nabble(a)juergenschmied.de>
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:06:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Starting engine using fireUntilHalt and
> inserting no
>> facts results in 50% CPU usage
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> fireUntilHalt uses one processor with 100%. You have a dualcore, so it's
>> 50%. It's by design like this.
>>
>> You can:
>> - Call fireAllRules after every insert if you have no ruleflow.
>>
>> - Use fireAllRules in a loop with a small sleep and check for the end of
> the
>> ruleflow in the loop:
>>
>> while (prc.getState() == ProcessInstance.STATE_ACTIVE) {
>> Threads.sleep(20);
>> ksession.fireAllRules();
>> }
>>
>> with both methods you get a low cpu load.
>>
>> bye
>>
>> juergen
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
>
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Starting-engine-using-fi
>
reUntilHalt-and-inserting-no-facts-results-in-50-CPU-usage-tp1760370p1761821
> .html
>>
>> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
5663
days inactive
5665
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Edson Tirelli -
jschmied -
mardo -
Norman C -
Tina Vießmann -
Wolfgang Laun