jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: the 1mn test: first jackrabbit performance and scalability tests
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:46:28 GMT
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:39:44 +0100, Ugo Cei <ugo@apache.org> wrote:
> Il giorno 12/nov/04, alle 10:22, David Nuescheler ha scritto:
> >
> > b) there are still a couple of functional blocks that
> > are unfinished and we are still manipulating the core
> > quite a bit so i am not sure whether it is the time to
> > do performance tuning already, especially since i
> > think we are in a somewhat acceptable range already.
> Right. In reality my aim was to show some of my colleagues here, who
> believe that the *only* way to store data in a fast, reliable and
> scalable way is to use some big-name RDBMS (read "Oracle"), that there
> are other ways that can be as fast or maybe faster.
> Now, with my benchmarks I can show them some interesting numbers re raw
> speed, but I am more concerned about reliability and scalability. For
> instance, by stopping the benchmark abruptly (Ctrl-C) I managed to put
> the workspace in a state where I couldn't restart the benchmark without
> deleting the workspace and restarting from scratch. 

i will fix that asap, thanks for reporting it.

> I am also concerned
> about what would happpen if I were to make the benchmark
> multi-threaded: are the current persistence-manager and filesystem
> implementations threadsafe or more work has to be done in this area?

although i tried to put 'synchronized' whereever i thought it's
required i have to
admit that threadsafety has not been my top concern so there's most certainly
more work to be done in this area.


>        Ugo
> --
> Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/

View raw message