Bug 1269047 - jBPM workflow take a long time to respond for a signal
jBPM workflow take a long time to respond for a signal
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Product: JBoss BPMS Platform 6
Classification: JBoss
Component: jBPM Core (Show other bugs)
5.x.x
other Linux
unspecified Severity urgent
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Maciej Swiderski
Radovan Synek
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2015-10-06 03:02 EDT by Balaji Kesavan
Modified: 2015-10-08 03:49 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-10-08 03:49:10 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Balaji Kesavan 2015-10-06 03:02:47 EDT
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 03:49:10 EDT
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.