Hello,

I posted the other day about persistence becuase I have been getting too
many persistence points in my orchestration when I expected many fewer.
For reference here is the news item:

news://news.microsoft.com/7127ff7bc...s.microsoft.com

I adjusted my orchestration by changing a long running scope to an atomic
transaction.  This helped, but I cant understand why I have 3 times more
persistence points than I was expecting.

Why?

I should have 6: 2 atomic scopes, end of orchestration, a long running trans
action,
and 2 send shapes.  When I open perfmon, select Xlang, chose persistence
points, and run and orchestration instance do do I get 15??  Almost 3 times
more!

The orchestration completes in under 2 seconds, there is no dehydration,
no break points or start orchestrations.

It does have some mappings, calls to the rules engine, sets some xpath varia
bles,
and makes a few decisions.  None of which consititute persistence points.

Can someone offer me some ideas as to why I am seeing so many persistence
points?  Could it be the perfmon tool interpreting things differently than
the official biztalk documentation would?

MS documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...g_orch_rrdy.asp

Thanks!

BA
http://biztalkia.blogspot.com/

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I take it you are using the Performance Counters to check the number of
persistence points?

If so, I found that is not accurate and should be used more as a relative
idea of the number of persistence points.  i.e if it says 15 and now says 5
you are doing well.

All in all, I would not be too concerned with reducing “every possible
persistence point” unless you are in a high demand environment or already
having performance issues.  Make sure you understand the impact of removing
your persistence points in the event of a crash and the Orchestration
restarts.

Hope this helps.

Stephen W. Thomas
http://www.biztalkgurus.com
http://geekswithblogs.net/sthomas/


"BA" wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I posted the other day about persistence becuase I have been getting too
> many persistence points in my orchestration when I expected many fewer.
> For reference here is the news item:
>
> news://news.microsoft.com/7127ff7bc...s.microsoft.com
>
> I adjusted my orchestration by changing a long running scope to an atomic
> transaction.  This helped, but I cant understand why I have 3 times more
> persistence points than I was expecting.
>
> Why?
>
> I should have 6: 2 atomic scopes, end of orchestration, a long running tra
nsaction,
> and 2 send shapes.  When I open perfmon, select Xlang, chose persistence
> points, and run and orchestration instance do do I get 15??  Almost 3 time
s
> more!
>
> The orchestration completes in under 2 seconds, there is no dehydration,
> no break points or start orchestrations.
>
> It does have some mappings, calls to the rules engine, sets some xpath var
iables,
> and makes a few decisions.  None of which consititute persistence points.
>
> Can someone offer me some ideas as to why I am seeing so many persistence
> points?  Could it be the perfmon tool interpreting things differently than
> the official biztalk documentation would?
>
> MS documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...g_orch_rrdy.asp
>
> Thanks!
>
> BA
> http://biztalkia.blogspot.com/
>
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hello Stephen,

That is correct, I am using performance counters, and I am glad to hear its
not accurate  (although in general, I wish it was)!

Actually I managed to reduce the number of persistence points from 21 down
to 15, what I expected to see was 6.  I did manage to shed a couple.

The performance counters must be counting more writes to the database than
just persistence points.  I wish there was something that measured it more
accurately.

Thanks,
BA
http://biztalkia.blogspot.com/

[vbcol=seagreen]
> I take it you are using the Performance Counters to check the number
> of persistence points?
>
> If so, I found that is not accurate and should be used more as a
> relative idea of the number of persistence points.  i.e if it says 15
> and now says 5 you are doing well.
>
> All in all, I would not be too concerned with reducing "every possible
> persistence point" unless you are in a high demand environment or
> already having performance issues.  Make sure you understand the
> impact of removing your persistence points in the event of a crash and
> the Orchestration restarts.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Stephen W. Thomas
> http://www.biztalkgurus.com
> http://geekswithblogs.net/sthomas/
> "BA" wrote:
> 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hey BA,

You know Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ... On the same idea, if
you have tools to tell everything with 100% accuracy, real-time, then
you end up with a less performant environment and your very results
will possibly be affected by the monitoring. 

Thanks,

Marian Drumea [MVP]
http://www.MarianDrumea.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]