Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53407 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2010 15:59:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2010 15:59:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 63191 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2010 15:59:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 63142 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2010 15:59:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 63134 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jul 2010 15:59:27 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:59:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jain.sm@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.170] (HELO mail-pv0-f170.google.com) (74.125.83.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:59:22 +0000 Received: by pvg16 with SMTP id 16so1095969pvg.1 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qhp1xo8oZUMSr5zXjPZI+5/jypesh20HWck2rTCYvss=; b=GabAkKhnI6EskNqWAJXrRwytaDg0wujSiwkA8jkxpKhN8yJsKnDIfSLY3tXzoo2hE8 i6oOgOI8q28ss+9QJTvTwENoHIFAEIejY1UUfrHuze5Vk/spXJdyBRR0Oc8rTJBCFUkz EZBhnon1y4qp608+Y5+Wi1vRpzUTPn0cP27q4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=B5gHaO3SVoXmUPTaE81EnM4ZxwPsWo2uQcTNLSWOVbjgxRqcHxQ43EdCaJqgLr6oW9 fqpX4BKIyFjaBSy1WL29UXSio6oJrMEnl25BPscZpHg+F/GKqWX1ApwuhkU/EmF7Ofg8 xHbFzOOp7q6HDTRgoA98r5dbl5MxLSxnvvQIo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.210.2 with SMTP id i2mr12128232wfg.21.1280332741790; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.58.69 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1280309108198-2304674.post@n4.nabble.com> <1280327064596-2305071.post@n4.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:29:01 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Concurrent Write issues with Jackrabbit From: shashank Jain To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sure.. But with 100 concurrent threads I guess we should not be looking for big hardware anyways. Also if we cluster the repository I guess still we deal with a global lock across nodes.. So not sure how much we gain Thanks Shashank On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Thomas M=FCller w= rote: > Hi, > >> What I am getting here is that writes will be >> serialized due to a Single Write lock > > For scalability, you also need scalable hardware. Just using multiple > threads will not improve performance if all the data is then stored on > the same disk. > > Regards, > Thomas >