Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21797 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2005 08:45:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jul 2005 08:45:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 89524 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2005 08:45:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jackrabbit-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 89509 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jul 2005 08:45:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:45:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [80.74.132.69] (HELO server2.jahia.com) (80.74.132.69) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:45:19 -0700 Received: (qmail 17669 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2005 08:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (85.232.171.63) by server2.jahia.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Jul 2005 08:45:13 -0000 Message-ID: <42C8F727.1040303@jahia.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:45:27 +0200 From: Serge Huber User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (JCR-91) JDBCPersistenceManager contribution References: <711318504.1120282510212.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <711318504.1120282510212.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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 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...