[rules-users] Measuring Drools Memory Usage

[Mark Proctor]

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