Re: [Wrapper-user] RE: Disabling JVM ping

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Clement,
    Thanks for the log files they were very helpful.   I think that the 
problem is
most likely that the Wrapper is not getting hardly any CPU at all.  I 
see cases
where the time stamps from the JVM are outputting a hundred or so lines of
output all with the exact same time stamp, but the time stamps from the 
Wrapper
show that it is taking well over a minute to output all of them. 
 Because it was
outputting around 1 line per second, it was taking over 50 seconds to 
output 50
lines of output from the JVM.  Thus, in the severe case you are seeing, 
my fix
did not work correctly.

    I made another attempt at fixing this by making the function that 
processes
JVM output yield CPU to the event loop after 250ms rather than 50 lines of
output.  Originally I had thought that counting to 50 would be a lighter 
operation
than getting the time so many times.  This new fix should work even in the
severe loading situation that you appear to be seeing.

    I have checked this fix into CVS and will email you an 3.0.2a 
release off list.
Could you please test this new version on the problematic machine and let me
know the results?  Whether it works or not, I would like to get at least 
two runs
with debug output enabled and the log format set to LPTM so I can take a 
look
and make sure it is behaving as I expect.

    Could you also verify that the system CPU is indeed pegged at 100% while
the application is starting up?  I want to make sure it is not some 
other problem
that I have not thought of.

    That is turning out to be a good test machine. :-)

Cheers,
Leif

Clement, Nathan wrote:

>Lief,
>
>We set the log level as requested and the problem did not occur.  We then
>tried various combinations of the log parameters with the results below:
>
>M+INFO=FAIL
>LPTM+DEBUG=WORK
>LPTM+INFO=FAIL
>M+DEBUG=FAIL
> 
>PTM+DEBUG=FAIL
>LM+DEBUG=FAIL
>
>I'm not sure why this occurs.  The log file for this is attached.  I think
>you can tell which part of the log corresponds to which parameter
>combination based on what the log contains.
>
>Regards,
>
>Nathan
>