Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53035 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2005 22:27:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Oct 2005 22:27:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 55763 invoked by uid 500); 11 Oct 2005 22:27:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 55731 invoked by uid 500); 11 Oct 2005 22:26:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Development" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 55720 invoked by uid 99); 11 Oct 2005 22:26:59 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:26:59 -0700 Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.110.151] (HELO e33.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.151) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:27:02 -0700 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9BMOqWF029020 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:24:52 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9BMQblJ423324 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:26:37 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9BMQbcf027342 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:26:37 -0600 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (DMCSDJDT41P.usca.ibm.com [9.72.133.55]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9BMQa3A027302 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:26:36 -0600 Message-ID: <434C3C1A.8010306@debrunners.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:26:34 -0700 From: Daniel John Debrunner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Development Subject: Re: in-memory References: <9f35fcc70510100738g287e6be2q798dcd660fc3f20d@mail.gmail.com> <9f35fcc70510102348w4353526docd9234d72e3f7597@mail.gmail.com> <434BD6C9.5020504@sun.com> <9f35fcc70510110907s257efef6u8c7b99bcc31c6b2f@mail.gmail.com> <434BEA46.1070706@debrunners.com> <7921d3e40510111121s43bb2da3o1b373585094aab9c@mail.gmail.com> <434C068D.2060202@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <434C068D.2060202@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N David W. Van Couvering wrote: > I have to agree, we need a more useful "memory-based" solution that > guarantees consistency if not durability. So just to repeat myself, the current relaxed durability matches a memory based solution in terms of consistency, ie. no problems. Durability is similar for both though with the current disk-based scheme and relaxed durability there are cases where the database will exist after a re-boot, where with the in-memory solution the data will be gone. Not saying an in-memory solution might not be useful, but the relaxed durability will give similar performance benefits since the data will be cached in memory, either within Derby or within the OS filesystem. Dan.