jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jos Potargent <jos.potarg...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: Out of incubation?
Date Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:43:16 GMT

the application is a document publishing repository, that is mostly
used for reading by a community.

The editing is done by editors in their own editing systems. Using a
publishing engine a PDF representation (or other read-only
representation) of the finished document, is stored in the publishing
repository, where the documents can be read by the community.

So this seems to be a typical application which is a good fit for a
JSR 170 repository:
- reading can be done by a request specifying an ID.
- people can browse the keywords hierarchy (2 or 3 levels) to find
related documents.

So I think JackRabbit should suffice. Versioning is not asked for by
the customers, but with a little effort, we could provide that.



On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:37:13 -0800, David Nuescheler
<david.nuescheler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) is it fully JSR-170 compliant at this moment? Or are there still
> > some missing issues that should be addressed?
> locking is still missing and i hope we will have it soon.
> but that's it i think.
> > 2) I read about the potential "Windows File System" problem that could
> > lack performance. But when I would deploy it on a Unix system, would
> > it be performant enough? Or stable enough?
> performancewise.... what do you need? i think it would be a good
> start if you could share a little bit about the nodetypes that you are
> looking at and how many instances of those you are expecting
> something in the form of:
> 2-3k nt:folder
> 110k nt:file
> 100k nt:resource
> 10k media:mp3track extends nt:resource + 20 string props
> 110k mix:versionable
> binary content 10gb
> i think information like that could also help you with the
> sizing of your infrastructure.
> since jackrabbit is built to "read fast", i would argue that the
> reading should probably not be an issue.
> do you expect a lot of searches?
> all in all i can say that our performance tests with
> jackrabbit at this point have been surprisingly good.
> the windows fs discussion is pretty much irrelevant if
> you use cqfs or any of the other persistence managers.
> stability is hard to quantify. i found jackrabbit very
> reliable so far, considering the status of the project.
> regards,
> david

View raw message