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: using one db for all filesystems and pms
Date Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:57:19 GMT
On 1/24/06, Giota Karadimitriou <Giota.Karadimitriou@eurodyn.com> wrote:
> For me at this point it would be best to use one db. I tried this with
> embedded Derby and seems to work ok; I just wanted some extra opinion
> just to verify I am on the right track:
>
> If I use one database instance for all workspaces + versioning, can
> there be any serious problems like for example the data of the second
> workspace to
> overlap with the data of the first workspace etc?

there's no overlap or conflict if the workspace and versioning persistence
managers are configured properly. the 'schemaObjectPrefix' configuration
parameter is used to distinguish each workspaces schema objects.
e.g. the 'default' workspace uses a table 'default_node', the 'foo'
workspace uses a table 'foo_node' etc.

cheers
stefan

>
> seems not but thought to get a second opinion...
>
> regards
> Giota
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Guggisberg [mailto:stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:18 PM
> To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: using one db for all filesystems and pms
>
> On 1/23/06, Giota Karadimitriou <Giota.Karadimitriou@eurodyn.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, I have been looking into derby manuals in order to
> understand
> > how Derby works and thinking of trying out some things, C-JDBC looks
> > interesting for example.
> >
> > Sth else, in my case I will probably have one workspace so the real
> > question is whether I should keep a separate db for versioning or
> > combine it with the one of the workspace.
>
> the current setup (separate db's rather than one db) has been an
> arbitrary
> choice. you have to try out what works best for you.
>
> cheers
> stefan
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Giota
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Guggisberg [mailto:stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:41 PM
> > To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: using one db for all filesystems and pms
> >
> > On 1/20/06, Giota Karadimitriou <Giota.Karadimitriou@eurodyn.com>
> wrote:
> > > This information was very useful; however I would like to pose some
> > > additional questions and forgive me if I ask sth which is pretty
> > > obvious.
> > >
> > > I would like to use derby and db persistence manager in a
> clusterable
> > > environment in a J2EE web-app.
> > >
> > > Does this mean that I would have to go for the standalone derby
> server
> > > solution (in which case
> > > I would have to use SimpleDbPersistenceManager instead of
> > > DerbyPersistenceManager).
> > >
> > > I assume yes but would there be a way to use an embedded Derby
> > instance?
> > > In this case and in a clustered environment when should I close the
> > > derby embedded connection?
> >
> > i am not a derby expert but the derby project has excelllent
> > documentation
> > which you can find here:
> > http://db.apache.org/derby/manuals/index.html
> >
> > >
> > > Furthermore, what is the common practice to be followed: many
> > databases
> > > or one? What would be the reason to use only one derby db besides
> > > economy?
> > >
> > > I would like to follow the pattern I saw in most emails in the list
> > (one
> > > db for each workspace home and one for versioning) but would this
> lead
> > > to enormous duplication of data/problems etc?
> >
> > there's no duplication of data when using separate db's for each
> > workspace.
> >
> > cheers
> > stefan
> >
> > >
> > > Could somebody point me to some thread/ article besides this one in
> > > order to start understanding more in depth the whole derby
> persistence
> > > process?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Giota
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Guggisberg [mailto:stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:32 PM
> > > To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: using one db for all filesystems and pms
> > >
> > > On 1/19/06, Brian Moseley <bcm@osafoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > has anybody configured jackrabbit to use a single database for all
> > > > repository and workspace filesystems and persistence managers?
> > > >
> > > > i'm trying out a configuration that uses a single derby db for all
> > of
> > > > jackrabbit. this seems easier to manage than five separate
> > databases.
> > > > this setup seems to function ok until the repository is shutdown.
> at
> > > > this point it looks like the first filesystem or persistence
> manager
> > > > to be closed closes the derby connection, causing the next
> > component's
> > > > close to fail.
> > >
> > > DerbyPersistenceManager assumes the derby database to be embedded;
> > > see
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/jackrabbit/apidocs/org/apache/jackrabbit/cor
> > > e/state/db/DerbyPersistenceManager.html
> > >
> > > in fact it only overrides the close() method of
> > > SimpleDbPersistenceManager
> > > in order to properly shutdown the embedded derby instance.
> > >
> > > what you probably want to use is a standalone derby server in which
> > case
> > > you can use SimpleDbPersistenceManager instead of
> > > DerbyPersistenceManager.
> > >
> > > e.g.
> > >
> > > <PersistenceManager
> > >
> >
> class="org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.db.SimpleDbPersistenceManager">
> > >          <param name="driver"
> > > value="org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientDriver"/>
> > >          <param name="url"
> > > value="jdbc:derby://localhost/jackrabbit;create=true"/>
> > >          <param name="schema" value="derby"/>
> > >          <param name="schemaObjectPrefix" value="${wsp.name}_"/>
> > >          <param name="externalBLOBs" value="false"/>
> > >      </PersistenceManager>
> > >
> > > alternatively you could still use an embedded derby database but
> > > using SimpleDbPersistenceManager instead of DerbyPersistenceManager.
> > > note that in this case you would have to exlicitly shutdown the
> > embedded
> > > derby database yourself.
> > >
> > > the derby manuals can be found here:
> > > http://db.apache.org/derby/manuals/index.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > are there any concerns about using a single unified database?
> > >
> > > no
> > >
> > > > what might be a good strategy for modifying jackrabbit to support
> > this
> > > > configuration? perhaps SimpleDbPersistenceManager and DbFilesystem
> > > > should simply ignore closed connections when shutting themselves
> > down?
> > >
> > > i don't think that that would be a good idea. see alternatives
> above.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > stefan
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message