Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcel.reutegger@gmx.net
 designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <487DC35B.1030108@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:46:03 +0200
From: Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on scalability
References: <76CE541B04343E41AFB23F126A46FE160D79C65C@exchlt1.LIFETOUCH.NET>
In-Reply-To: <76CE541B04343E41AFB23F126A46FE160D79C65C@exchlt1.LIFETOUCH.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Paul,

Paul Kling wrote:
> I am currently working on a project that has the need to store 100
> million images every year. We tend to keep the images for around 18
> months. So at any one time we will have about 150 million images in the
> repository. The question I have is does this sound reasonable to store
> this quantity of images in JackRabbit or does this sound scary? I worry
> about retrieval of the items. 

it doesn't sound scary to me, though I have to admit that I never worked with a 
repository of that size. I've seen repositories that contain around 10 million 
nodes without any issues.

> I also noticed there is a clustering feature but the documentation
> seemed to point you to using the DB for file storage. We have been down
> the route of letting the DB store file data in the past and it has never
> turned out to be something that worked well and I don't think I can get
> people convinced of again. 

jackrabbit does not store the complete file in the database, it stores the 
contents of a file in a data store [1]. the database will only contain a 
reference into the data store.

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DataStore

regards
  marcel