I have a continuous webjob and sometimes it can take a REALLY, REALLY long time to process (i.e. several days). I'm not interested in partitioning it into smaller chunks to get it done faster (by doing it more parallel). Having it run slow and steady is fine with me. I was looking at the documentation about webjobs here where it lists out all the settings but it doesn't specify the defaults or maximums for these values. I was curious if anybody knew.
Since the docs say
"WEBJOBS_RESTART_TIME - Timeout in seconds between when a continuous job's process goes down (for any reason) and the time we re-launch it again (Only for continuous jobs)."
it doesn't matter how long your process runs.
Please clarify your question as most part of it is irrelevant to what you're asking at the end.
If you want to know the min - I'd say try 0. For max try MAX_INT (2147483647), that's 68 years. That should do it ;).
There is no "max run time" for a continuous WebJob. Note that, in practice, there aren't any assurances on how long a given instance of your Web App hosting the WebJob is going to exist, and thus your WebJob may restart anyway. It's always good design to have your continuous job idempotent; meaning it can be restarted many times, and pick back up where it left off.
It goes like this: in my test method, I have 3 Playback.Wait() calls. Each one is set to 2 minutes. Between those waits, I am doing some stuff here and there, - that stuff works, was tested without those 3 waits and is all OK. As soon as 3 waits are there, test method just exists on its own, somewhere during 2nd wait. There is no call stack, no useful info regarding the cause for test termination, nothing. I am pretty much clueless at the moment what is happening. Elapsed time is always 5 minutes, - no more no less.
Do you have any idea what can be wrong?
This is a setting in your .testsettings file, under Test Timeouts section. Specifically, "Mark individual test as failed if its execution time exceeds:", and then gives you fields to enter time in hours, minutes, and seconds. I believe that 5 minutes is the default. You can increase this to fit your purpose, or just remove it entirely (not reccommended).
Running a single script with only two users as a single scenario without any pacing, just think time set to 3 seconds and random (50%-150%) I experience that the web app server runs of of memory after 10 minutes every time (I have run the test several times, and it happens at the same time every time).
First I thouhgt this was a memory leak in the application, but after some thought I figured it might have to do with the scenario design.
The entire script having just one action including log in and log out within the only action block takes about 50 seconds to run and I have the default as soon as the previous iteration ends set not the with delay after the previous iteration ends or fixed/random intervalls set.
Could not using fixed/random intervalls cause this "memory leak" to happen? I guess non of the settings mentioned would actually start a new iteration before the one before ends, this obvioulsy leading to accumulation of memory on the server resulting in this "memory leak". But with no pacing set is there a risk for this to happen?
And having no iterations in my script, could I still be using pacing?
To answer your last question: NO.
Pacing is explicitly used when a new iteration starts. The iteration start is delayed according to pacing settings.
Speculation/Conclusions:
If the web-server really runs out of memory after 10 minutes, and you only have 2 vu's, you have a problem on the web-server side. One could manually achieve this 2vu load and crash the web-server. The pacing in the scripts, or manual user speeds are irrelevant. If the web-server can be crashed from remote, it has bugs that need fixing.
Suggestion:
Try running the scenario with 4 users. Do you get OUT OF MEMORY on the web-server after 5 mins?
If there really is a leak, your script/scenario shouldn't be causing it, but I would think that you could potentially cause it to appear to be a problem sooner depending on how you run it.
For example, let's say with 5 users and reasonable pacing and think times, the server doesn't die for 16 hours. But with 50 users it dies in 2 hours. You haven't caused the problem, just exposed it sooner.
i hope its web server problem.pacing is nothing but a time gap in between iterations,it's not effect actions or transactions in your script
I'd like to write an extension that displays a desktop notification every day at a specified time. Having a quick look through the Chrome APIs, it seems like the only way to do this would be to:
create a background page for my extension,
use setInterval() with a sufficiently low resolution to not tax the CPU (even 5 min is fine),
when interval fires, check if the current time is after the desired time,
ensure that the user has not already been displayed the notification today.
(The details of the last step are irrelevant to my question, just put in to show I realize I need to prevent "flapping" of the notice).
This seems rather indirect and potentially expensive though; is there any way around this? Is the background page needed?
I suppose I could just call setTimeout() and only fire the event once (by calculating how long between now & desired time), then call it again after the notification is shown. For some reason that sounds more "brittle", though I'm not sure why...
I think you will want the background page to do this smoothly. You can't use a content script because you need to keep the "state"/timer.
So when background page first loads (browser start) you work out the current time and the offset to the next notification time and setInterval to that exact interval. That way you won't need to poll every five minutes and/or work out if you've shown the message. You simply show it at the exact time required. This has to be far more efficient, effective and cleaner than polling. At notification you just reset the interval again.
Some sample functions here:
setTimeout but for a given time
From reading the above post and from a quick search on the net it appears that you should have no problem calling setInterval for an interval such as once a day. Calvin suggests 25 days!
That is how I would approach it.
EDIT: Since posting one thing that has sprung to mind is what happens if a PC gets hibernated for n hours? I need to test this myself for a similar project so I will update once I've had a chance to test this out.
Can anyone give me a scenario where they think busy cursors are justified? I feel like they're always a bad idea from a user's perspective. Clarification: by busy cursors, I mean when the user can no longer interact with the application, they can only move their hourglass mouse pointer around and whistle a tune.
In summary, I think that the user should be blocked from doing stuff in your app only when the wait interval is very short (2 seconds or less) and the cognitive overhead of doing multi-threading is likely to result in a less stable app. For more detail, see below.
For an operation lasting less than 0.1 second, you don't usually need to go asynchronous or even show an hourglass.
For an operation lasting between 0.1 and 2 seconds, you usually don't need to go asynchronous. Just switch the cursor to the hourglass, then do the work inline. The visual cue is enough to keep the end-user happy.
If the end-user initiates an operation that is going to take just a couple of seconds, he's in a "focused" mode of thinking in which he's subconsciously waiting for the results of his action, and he hasn’t switched his conscious brain out of that particular focus. So blocking the UI - with a visual indicator that this has happened - is perfectly acceptable for such a short period of time.
For an operation lasting more than 2 seconds, you should usually go asynchronous. But even then, you should provide some sort of progress indicator. People find it difficult to concentrate in the absence of stimulation, and 2 seconds is long enough that the end-user is naturally going to move from conscious ‘focused’ activity to conscious ‘waiting’ activity.
The progress indicator gives them something to occupy them while they are in that waiting mode, and also gives the means of determining when they are going to switch back into their ‘focused’ context. The visual cues give the brain something around which to structure those context switches, without demanding too much conscious thought.
Where it gets messy is where you have an operation that usually completes in X time, but occasionally takes Y, where Y is much greater than X. This can happen for remote actions such as reaching across a network. That's when you might need a combination of the above actions. For example, consider displaying an egg-timer for the first 2 seconds and only then bringing in your progress indicator. This avoids wrenching the end-user from the 'focused' context directly to the 'waiting' context without an intermediate step.
It's not specifically the busy cursor that is important, but it IS important, absolutely, always to give feedback to the user that something is happening in response to their input. It is important to realize that without a busy cursor, progress bar, throbber, flashing button, swirling baton, dancing clown.. it doesn't matter ANYTHING- if you don't have it, and the computer just sits there doing nothing, the computer looks broken to the user.
immediate feedback for every user action is incredibly important.
I think you may well be right: in a decent asynchronous app, you never need to show a busy cursor. The user can always do something even if the big last operation is completing.
That said, sometimes Java apps like Netbeans or Eclipse, or even Visual Studio, hang with no busy cursor and no hope. But in that case, a busy cursor probably wouldn't help much either...but I think you're right: busy cursors are from a non-multithreading era for apps. In Flex apps, for instance, EVERYTHING is automatically event-driven callbacks, so setting a busy cursor would just be meaningless (though possible, of course).
You show a busy cursor when the user can not do anything until the operation is completed - including exiting the application.
I find it interesting that you don't see busy cursors in Web Browsers - perhaps that why people like them so much.
No, wait, I have a better answer. You show a busy cursor when the computer is thinking.
When one hits the Refresh button on a web browser, busy cursor must appear immediately to tell the user to let them know that a page is being loaded.
I think it was Don't Make Me Think that said that the tolerable loading time for human is zero second.
Google says:
Responsive
It's possible to write code that wins
every performance test in the world,
but that still sends users in a fiery
rage when they try to use it. These
are the applications that aren't
responsive enough — the ones that feel
sluggish, hang or freeze for
significant periods, or take too long
to process input.
There are two purposes for it:
Indicate for the user that something is happening.
Indicate for the user that nothing can't be done right now.
Busy cursor is better signal about the operation than nothing. For longer lasting operations something better should be used. For example browsers is still operational when a page is being retrieved and there is even a button to stop the operation. As the user interface is fully functional, there is no need to use busy cursor. However busy cursor can be used even in this kind of situations in the transition phases like when starting the operation or when stopping it.
I try to use them on any action that may take from 0.5 to 3 seconds, for longer actions I think progress indicators with enough information should be used.
I noticed with Fedora 8 at least that when an app sets the "busy" cursor, the "busy interactive" one is actually displayed. I guess this is because the system is still responsive to mouse input (like dragging the window etc.). As an aside, selecting the "busy interactive" cursor explicitly on linux is tricky:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/x_cursors/
The only thing I believe the busy cursor does is it informs the user that ...
I'm not outright ignoring you, I'm just doing something else that may take awhile
While it is absolutely necessary to alert the user that your application is doing something, a busy cursor is only useful for the first few seconds of processing. For a delay of more than about 15-20 seconds, something else must be presented such as a progress bar, status message, message box, whatever. People assume your software has locked up after a minute or so and will try to terminate it. Sometimes, overall visual cues are just as important as a busy cursor.
For example, applications with tabs that do not respond with appropriate highlighting until the operation in the tab completes can be fixed up by updating the tab temporarily until all operations are complete. Sometimes, just a little optimization or refactoring will clean up horrible user interface responsiveness such as this.
I would use them only for quick completing things, like say under half a second. If anything takes longer than that then a progress dialog should popup, or a progress bar should appear in the status bar or somewhere else in the interface.
The user should always be able to cancel the action if it is taking too long to complete.
In response to the comment, the busy cursor would only be visible for the half second or so, as once the progress dialog is up it should change to being one of those "half busy" cursors, or just the normal arrow cursor.
You should avoid having a busy cursor up except in extreme circumstances, and if you think you need one, then think again and redesign.
For example, to indicate that you've clicked on a button, even though it's not done processing the event. If there were not some indication, the user might try to click the button again, causing all manner of badness.