Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <522D75A7.7070505@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:15:51 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= <elecharny@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Cache and partitions...
References: <522C3078.8030505@gmail.com>
 <CABzFU-cSD6sB0J4kNjCBCYwEKF1P-iBnfQXJAOCO_QAXJuK_qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <522D5FFD.7040902@gmail.com> <522D621B.6090903@gmail.com>
 <522D6938.9060706@stefan-seelmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <522D6938.9060706@stefan-seelmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 9/9/13 8:22 AM, Stefan Seelmann a écrit :
> On 09/09/2013 07:52 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> Le 9/9/13 7:43 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
>>> Le 9/9/13 4:46 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit :
>>>
>>> I suggest we focus on decoupling the cacheService we have from it's
>>> EhCache implementation atm, so that the API is not to be odified after
>>> the next release, and that's it. I also suggest to make this
>>> CacheService available in the Partitions, even if it's not used.
>>>
>>> again, IMO plugging in this kind of mechanism may not be of great help,
>>>> just more work
>>>> on a feature that may never be used, I believe Ehcache is the best
>>>> available cache with
>>>> the compatible license and unless we try to write our own we don't need
>>>> this new feature
> I agree that we should have a interface to be able to change the cache
> implementation. I think ehcache is the default choice today, but it's
> not just a simple in-memory cache but a huge product with tons of features.
>
>> FTR :
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-jcs/JCSvsEHCache.html
>>
>> *"JCS proved to be nearly twice as fast as EHCache * in multiple trials
>> for both puts and gets"
>>
>> And it's an Apache project ;-)
>>
> Just a small note regarding performance of ehcache: it keeps lot of
> statistics (hit rate, miss rate, etc.), and before version 2.1 they were
> enabled by default which costs significant performance.

probably... We are currently using 2.4.4, we could switch to 2.7.4.

OTOH, I checked the JCS code, and it's also heavily synchronized. I
think we should compare the performances of the google
concurrentLinkedMap against the two other implementations. Also note
that JCS still uses 1.4 code base, and depends on Doug Lea code (the
code that was injected in 1.5). There is a on going effort to port JCS
to 1.5, but it's far from being done.


Thanks !

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com