Oracle SOA 11g BPEL transaction semantics and performance

In this post I'll provide a simple integration example and provide some suggestions to optimize the performance. Optimization suggestions are focused on transaction semantics. It's purpose is to indicate the importance to take into account various settings related to transaction management.

The base and inspiration for this post are the presentations and material from SOA Blackbelt training which was given by Oracle in Berlin this year from the 11th to the 14th of June. The training covered a lot of material in great depth. If you have the chance to follow it, I highly recommend it!

Test setup

First I enqueue 2000 messages on an Oracle AQ and take a timestamp which I write in a separate table in the same transaction. After a COMMIT, a BPEL process is triggered and picks up the messages (one instance per message). This process puts the message in a table. The moment of insertion is determined by having a default value on a field in the table. I then determine the time difference between the last message put in the table in the batch and the moment of insertion in the AQ. To avoid the overhead of audit logging, I turn this off for the specific process. The code used can be downloaded at the end of this post.

I will vary the bpel.config.oneWayDeliveryPolicy. I will try sync and async.persist (the default). async.persist will first put dequeued messages in the DLV_MESSAGE table before they are further processed in a separate transaction. sync will not do this and will invoke the BPEL process synchronously. I use three different datasource settings for this test. I will try both oneWayDeliveryPolicy settings with an XA datasource (which uses a 2-phase commit) and two non XA datasources. For the non XA datasource I will test with and without Global Transaction support. I will test this using different datasources and the same datasource. I will also test all combinations with the bpel.config.transaction setting to required and requiresNew.

Summarized; four different settings are varied in all combinations of the other settings. Two measures are taken with each combination.
- bpel.config.oneWayDeliveryPolicy (async.persist, sync)
- bpel.config.transaction (required, requiresNew)
- different datasource settings; XA, NonXA, NonXA no global transaction support
- using the same and different datasources with the same settings

I created 6 datasources with the three different settings;
testuserXa, testuserXa2
testuserNonXa, testuserNonXa2
testuserNonXaGlobal, testuserNonXaGlobal2

Next I created 6 connection factories for the DbAdapter and 6 connection factories for the AqAdapter. I varied the datasources in the JCA files in the BPEL process I created. For every test I primed the datasources/engine with 100 messages. Next I took 2 measures of 2000 messages.

Results

The * indicates the process failed with the following exception;
BINDING.JCA-11616
DBWriteInteractionSpec Execute Failed Exception.
insert failed. Descriptor name: [WriteToStore.TestStore].
Caused by java.sql.SQLException: Cannot call Connection.commit in distributed transaction.  Transaction Manager will commit the resource manager when the distributed transaction is committed..

As can be seen, using an XA datasource decreased performance. Also using the sync property increased performance. In this example, little effect was visible when changing the transaction property. There was little difference in using two different datasources instead of a single datasource for processing. The NonXa datasource with global transaction support executed an explicit commit (apparently) which conflicted with the distributed nature of the transaction. This happened in all cases when performing an insert action using this datasource. This also indicates the transaction was distributed in all cases (even when using a Non Xa datasource without global transaction support).

Conclusion

When using the oneWayDeliveryPolicy setting of sync, the entire process is processed in a single transaction. When using async.persist, 2 transactions are involved. One to write to the DLV_MESSAGE table and one to call the DB insert.

The performance impact of writing to DLV_MESSAGE and the extra transaction was measurable. When calling a process synchronously, the effect would have been greater since then it would have been 4 transactions when using the async.persist setting.

Using an XA datasource means a two-phase commit is used. This has a slight overhead which is measurable in this example. It also provides a difference in behavior, mainly in the event of a fault. See for example; http://soaranch.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/global-and-local-transactions-in-oracle-soa-11g-composites/.

Because of the process setup, I could not measure much effect on the transaction setting since the process initialization by the Aq adapter always starts a new transaction. When a process is called from another process, I would have expected to see a performance gain with the 'required' setting since then I woukld have expected less transactions.

I would have liked to see if the DbAdapter and AqAdapter behaved differently when different datasources on the same database schema were used to connect instead of the same datasource. The only difference found however was that when using async.persist, requiresNew and using the same NonXA datasource without global transaction support, errors occurred. These errors did not occur when using different datasources (also NonXA without global transaction support). Apparently with these settings, an explicit commit is executed when performing an insert by using the DbAdapter. Also the incoming message was read using the AqAdapter and the result was written using the DbAdapter. These adapters both have their own connectionpools. Using the same adapter might have caused different behavior. Using different datasources might make it possible to have more open incoming connections. This however in this case was most likely limited by other settings such as invoker threads.

Something to mind when considering the transaction related settings is it's impact on fault handling. This is however not the focus of this post. See for example; http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E15523_01/integration.1111/e10224/soa_transactions.htm and https://blogs.oracle.com/soabpm/entry/soa_suite_11g_-_transactions_b

Of course many other settings can be tuned to increase performance. The effects found when changing the settings might also differ with the nature of the process tested. In this case, invoker threads can be increased to allow messages to be picked up faster and the maximum number of connections allowed by the datasources can be increased. The process can also be made transient. The list of other possible options to make this specific process go faster are numerous. The purpose of this example is however to indicate the impact transactions can have on the performance of a process so the other factors are kept constant and the default settings from the Oracle SOA 11g PS5 image are used; http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/soasuite/learnmore/vmsoa-172279.html

You can download the used code and test results below;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6693935/blog/Transactions.zip

Oracle BPEL and Java. A comparison of different interaction options

When building BPEL processes in Oracle SOA Suite 11g, it sometimes happens some of the required functionality can't easily be created by using provided activities, flow control options and adapters. Often there are Java libraries available which can fill these gaps. This blog post provides an evaluation of different options for making interaction between BPEL and Java possible.

In the examples provided in this post, I'm using the JsonPath library (https://code.google.com/p/json-path/) inside a BPEL process. A usecase for this could be that a webclient calls the BPEL process with a JSON message and BPEL needs to extract fields from that message.

The Java code to execute, is the following;

package ms.testapp;

import com.jayway.jsonpath.JsonPath;

public class JsonPathUtils {
   
    public String ExecuteJsonPath(String jsonstring, String jsonpath) {
        String result = JsonPath.read(jsonstring, jsonpath).toString();
        return result;
    }
    
    public JsonPathUtils() {
        super();
    }
}

Of course small changes were necessary for the specific integration methods. I provided code samples at the end of this post for every method.

Integration methods

Embedding

Oracle has provided an extension activity for BPEL which allows Java embedding. By using this activity, Java code can be used directly from BPEL. The JsonPath libraries to use in the embedding activity can be put in different locations such as the domain library directory or be deployed as part of the BPEL process. Different classloaders will be involved. To check whether this matters I've tried both locations.

Performance
The Java call happens within the same component engine. Below are measures from when using JSON libraries deployed as part of the BPEL process (in SCA-INF/lib).

Below are measures from when putting the libraries in the domain library folder.

As you can see from the measures, the performance is very comparable. The location where the BPEL process gets it's classes from has no clear measurable consequences for the performance.

Re-use potential
When the libraries are placed in the domain lib folder, they can be reused by almost everything deployed on the applications server. This should be considered. When deploying as part of the composite, there is no re-use potential outside the composite except possibly indirectly by calling the composite.

Maintenance considerations
Embedded Java code is difficult to maintain and debug. When deployed as part of a BPEL process, changes to the library require redeployment of the process. When libraries are put in the domain library directory, changes to it, impact all applications using it and might require a restart.

XPath

XPath extension functions can be created and used in BPEL (+ other components) and JDeveloper. This is nicely described on; https://blogs.oracle.com/reynolds/entry/building_your_own_path.

Performance
The custom XPath library is included as part of the SOA infrastructure and does not leave this context. As can be seen, the performance is comparable to the Java embedding method.

Re-use potential
The reuse potential is high. The custom XPath library can be used in different locations/engines, dependent on the descriptor file.

Maintenance considerations
Reuse by different developers in JDeveloper requires minimal local configuration, but this allows GUI support of the custom library. There are no specific changes to BPEL code thus low maintenance overhead. Changing the library on the application server requires a restart of the server.

Spring component

The Java code can be called as a Spring component inside a composite. Here another component within the composite is called. The Java code is executed outside the BPEL engine.

Performance

Re-use potential
The following blog posts links to options with the Spring Framework; https://blogs.oracle.com/rammenon/entry/spring_framework_samples. When deployed inside a composite, reuse is limited to the composite. It is possible to define global Spring beans however, increasing re-use. The code can be created/debugged outside an embedding activity.

Maintenance considerations
The Spring component is relatively new to Oracle SOA Suite so some developers might not know how to work with this option yet. It's maintenance options are better then for the BPEL embedding activity. It is however still deployed as part of a composite.

External webservice

Java code can be externalized completely by for example providing it as a JAX-WS webservice or an EJB.

Performance
Performance is poor compared to the solutions described above. This is most likely due to the overhead of leaving soa-infra and the layers the message needs to pass to be able to be called from BPEL.

Re-use potential
Re-use potential is highest for this option. Even external processes can call the webservice so re-use is not limited to the same application server.

Maintenance considerations
Since the code is completely externalized, this option provides the best maintenance options. It can be developed separately by Java developers and provided to be used by an Oracle SOA developer. Also it can be replaced without requiring a server restart or composite redeploy.

Conclusion

The technical effort required to implement the different methods is comparable. Depending on the usecase/requirements, different options might be relevant. If performance is very important, embedding and XPath expressions might be your best choice. If maintenance and reuse are important, then externalizing the Java code in for example an external webservice might be the better option.

Summary of results

This is of course a personal opinion.

The used code with examples of all embedding options can be downloaded here; https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6693935/blog/TestJavaEmbedding.zip