Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 83744 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2010 21:09:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Jun 2010 21:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 43656 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2010 21:09:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 43604 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2010 21:09:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 43585 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jun 2010 21:09:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:09:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of patricioe@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.42] (HELO mail-pw0-f42.google.com) (209.85.160.42) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:09:37 +0000 Received: by pwi4 with SMTP id 4so1075989pwi.1 for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:09:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=DqynOWpfDdoq132TcExSwX4xzYj7FvJ4YWRzlRSZTvU=; b=YMZv8lcI7wgA6iEpuwNZkb0uXYvKYffqj9jE5DcmIZStAhM/a81S+Kh7VkL8cD9iZL CzImTJwWz+K6pNagMQkyQ8oSE0zpNPWFXGcIA5hXsmb9wQPF0+9w4RVsFCMyli3bsmHX gAJacKOS55s9S7sqXSNMfMitYapOUwqmoHCcU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Zdlod5upgHAlzrUH+nWcpGCCg0ZbCMDx45Y1PVzCUo6xTLh+ye4dEuV/rQJjpc7MW8 QlSvlTEe5t2uq173ayyUJRqLHtWK9OckaBB77ajEFciIBedeLq0F2KLAZ6xfZQo8Eaci YKbcMigKOf/32cJIAU2gFU0ZlEkuSn1aivNdk= Received: by 10.141.214.35 with SMTP id r35mr2486981rvq.264.1276117756064; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:09:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.51.14 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BCC26A9.7030801@rug.nl> <4BCD7981.10505@rug.nl> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patricio_Echag=FCe?= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:08:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Performance question when clustering To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd17e948ab3d004889f51c4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd17e948ab3d004889f51c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It might be a late reply but we i saw at least in JR 2.0 is that when session.save() happens it also forces a sync first so that the JR node gets up-to-date first. We also see the degradation in performance the more nodes we put in the cluster. The global lock forces to make every session.save() sequential since it acquires a global lock. My 2 cents On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Thomas M=FCller wr= ote: > Hi, > > > automatic sync and the manual Session.refresh() have essentially the > > same result? > > I think so. > > > Should this be something you should know? > > I don't plan to find out, sorry. I didn't write the cluster code, and > I don't feel responsible for it :-) > > Regards, > Thomas > --=20 Patricio.- --000e0cd17e948ab3d004889f51c4--