archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan McLaughlin <>
Subject Re: Was the EhCache downgrade in 1.3 intentional?
Date Wed, 12 May 2010 11:57:31 GMT
I think you are correct about our slowness being caused by a proxied
repository that was offline.  We've seen this in the past, and its not easy
to track down.  Is there a timeout/retry setting we can tune that would help
reduce the impacts that an offline repository has on download performance?


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Deng Ching <> wrote:

> Thanks for reporting this Dan! Good catch :)
> The downgrade in the plexus-cache-ehcache build is not intentional. It's
> possible that the plexus-cache-ehcache in 1.2.2 was a patched copy in my
> local repository (from a totally different issue I was working on at that
> time) that was mistakenly bundled in the 1.2.2 release. But IIRC, the
> changes I did was in the EhcacheCache class so I'm not sure . Since Brett
> released 1.3, the plexus-cache-ehcache jar bundled with the 1.3 release
> likely came from his local repository which is probably the published copy
> in central.
> It might also be worthwhile to check if the remote repositories being
> proxied are online. It's possible that one of them went down after the
> upgrade which could also be a reason why the downloading of artifacts are
> taking a while.
> -Deng
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Dan McLaughlin <
>> wrote:
>> We've seen a significant increase in time it takes to download/upload
>> artifacts from Archiva after we upgraded from 1.2.2 to 1.3.  I'm in the
>> very
>> beginning stages of my investigation, but one thing I just noticed when
>> comparing the Archiva WAR between 1.2.2 and 1.3 is that the
>> plexus-cache-ehcache-1.0-alpha-2.jar in the 1.3 release says it was built
>> March 29, 2007 by Brett...and the version in 1.2.2 was build Jun 23 2009
>> by
>> Deng.  If you JAD the EhcacheCreator classes between the two, there are
>> some
>> fairly significant differences between the them.  I'm not suggesting that
>> this has anything to do with our issues, but I wanted to point it out as a
>> can't imagine that you intentionally moved back to a version of ehcache
>> that
>> was two years older than the one you included in the 1.2.2 release.
>> Regards,
>> Dan

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message