Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com) will be under maintenance for infrastructure upgrades and will not be available on July 31st between 12:30 AM - 05:30 AM UTC. We appreciate your understanding and patience. You can follow status.redhat.com for details.
Bug 1269047 - jBPM workflow take a long time to respond for a signal
Summary: jBPM workflow take a long time to respond for a signal
Alias: None
Product: JBoss BPMS Platform 6
Classification: Retired
Component: jBPM Core
Version: 5.x.x
Hardware: other
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Maciej Swiderski
QA Contact: Radovan Synek
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-10-06 07:02 UTC by Balaji Kesavan
Modified: 2015-10-08 07:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-10-08 07:49:10 UTC
Type: Bug

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Balaji Kesavan 2015-10-06 07:02:47 UTC
Description of problem:
jBPM engine takes a longer time to execute a job when multiple requests are running in background. Even a simple job takes about 45 minutes to respond. 
Any subsequent signals after the first signal are properly rejected.
We need to know what is the queuing mechanism being used by jBPM for processing the jobs on the same workflow. Need some basic information on how to debug this scenario.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
jBPM 4.1

How reproducible:
Everytime in customer machine, whenever a load test is being run.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Signal a job for a particular workflow. 
2. Create a delay (or wait) in the response.
3. Signal subsequent response for the same workflow.

Actual results:
Response time takes about 45 min.

Expected results:
Response time should be immediate.

Additional info:

Comment 2 Kris Verlaenen 2015-10-08 07:49:10 UTC
Can you please confirm which version you are using?  There is only official support for BPM Suite (productized versions of jBPM), which does not include jBPM4.

We also need much more information to be able to reproduce the issue.  

So please reopen the issue and specify the version of the product you are using and attach the necessary information if possible.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.