jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guo Du <mrdu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Filesystem versus PersistenceManager questions
Date Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:58:19 GMT
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:28 PM, ChadDavis <chadmichaeldavis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I read elsewhere that the FS is only used for some administrative
> stuff, like the search index and configuration.  Is this correct?  In
> other words, the FS isn't a part of the storage for the actual repo
> content, that's all done by the PM?
DataStore was used to store large node which is on FS. Large node
could be multimedia or large documents. Store in db is not recommended
even it could be easily store in db.

> 2) It appears as if there is no good file system backed PM . . . is
Not sure day.com's TAR PM is based on file system or not. It's best so
far from what I read from the list.

> this accurate?  The bundleFsPM is described as non-production, read
> only.  So, this kind of means that the FS is NOT a choice for backing
> the content of my repo, correct?
Default FS PM doesn't perform well and not transactional.

> 3) Is the Derby PM considered production worthy?  Any reason not to use it?
Personal I trust derby as a low overhead database with zero
administration. It's not suitable if you have strong dba person which
she/he may lose job:) You may use other db if:
* Prepared to manage database.
* Multi connection required (embedded db using single connection always)
* Cluster your db
* Huge db size
* You application will use exist db along with jackrabbit

After you made decision, you could do some basic benchmark along with
your dataset to get a feeling of how it perform.

Good luck!

-Guo

Mime
View raw message