jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Serge Huber <shub...@jahia.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (JCR-91) JDBCPersistenceManager contribution
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:45:27 GMT
Edgar Poce (JIRA) wrote:

>    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-91?page=comments#action_12314941 ] 
>
>Edgar Poce commented on JCR-91:
>-------------------------------
>
>The more I know jackrabbit internals the more I see that this kind of approach is discouraged.
I'll close this issue as "won't fix" unless anyone says anything to the contrary. Anyway,
I'll make the changes needed to pass all the tests, it might be interesting to keep it in
an experimental approach section, maybe in the wiki?.
>  
>
This brings me to beg the question : what is the recommended setup to 
use Jackrabbit in a clustering environment ? Since all the current 
implementations use file-based implementations, this would normally 
require that :

- the cache system must be cluster-aware (for example using OSCache with 
JGroups, or JBossCache, or the commercial Tangosol Coherence implementation)
- the file-system must be shared across the network and be locking-aware 
(which requires NFS).

or :

- the JCR-RMI implementation should be able to talk to more than one node
- adding another type of implementation such as JCR-RMI that would work 
with a cluster.

The database based PMs solve the problem of clustering the data by 
leaving the cluster handling to the JDBC drivers or the database 
implementation, a problem area that is quite well known and solved 
nowaways. The downside is that in terms of absolute performance there 
will always be a cost compared to the file-based PMs.

Did I miss something here ? Are there other options I didn't know of ?

Regards,
  Serge...

Mime
View raw message