Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60AAD9249 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 09:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 99068 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2011 09:36:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 98888 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2011 09:35:16 -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 98850 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2011 09:35:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:35:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [98.138.91.129] (HELO nm29-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.91.129) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:34:54 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm29.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2011 09:34:32 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.172] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2011 09:34:32 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1028.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2011 09:34:32 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 138786.18997.bm@omp1028.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 86377 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Dec 2011 09:34:32 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1322991272; bh=Df8EtMrZVZPwbxv+1+W48vAWlLU285I6jLKllqrDkSk=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZEg79OH3SOg0aF+t4wbnhqdX/ACLhw+iYLePBB2/5iMplqIHVkFv0hS+D2+Eh5k0wrkJpna1lhgfXzmND1aWaesrjz8WK0BNgzAtOCCqh4vR06SDH+7+bwD9HDan3ci1aI/Y7h9qRB0J65aJrHbcMFrDfzHUVWotvbyErwS8fXU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=xG6jrYdUZS3nAI2zAfksCREs6xzrowka8qZAjhVJxwTjsWVjiZz5WbUx13BK/hU2T7YwaBomtewmGTwXeRMpuNs/LziQDzfKnTWbrct7B8cy8ORAq9FLUpsvSMoagFbzw8PJRR4a8uWvaow8qBsjTZ6L3nLg04VfMjkjQp84XnI=; X-YMail-OSG: Ekn0uU4VM1me2G8kypbAKeVqZR1iMeJ.Y02l6iSfvsaiYZO rZv7GLhNKigIl00pYn1UsbUBrdhGsEviI6a57YYBpFQIpenTHETB7CaVve0o nN87Q4K0Jg12nWZOmpDpQse07I5DcCf8hmaOFscO6_jUo5kKPpPl0fHZgBts lOLcAXKUGqywajICab22L8qG2VxNeQs_NDGhi2ud_idG2AckQCTVq63ryzrc ME52vLX_dhDzWNqyX.m0NcyXqagEfgGFqoutnspGmlgEFWbscxMcMb8oGs8c bT2OTiXFX5sZ.uXXQpQ5SP9_NOlw6DDU2oLYPZ549IQjRHSTTJu8yrOnO4Fy lsIl5dDVhZugA75YRJaDu94KLyXJ9wbOrbUiu6FN7t62lNv6XHFgvAfsuviL dd1.jjDnYevD7iyCN5P2wp8W_MCA- Received: from [113.193.100.37] by web121812.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:34:31 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698 Message-ID: <1322991271.71378.YahooMailNeo@web121812.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 01:34:31 -0800 (PST) From: Manav Kumar Reply-To: Manav Kumar Subject: Performance improvement in case JCR content repository connected through WebDav To: "users@jackrabbit.apache.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1182121852-1154970894-1322991271=:71378" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ---1182121852-1154970894-1322991271=:71378 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,=0A=0AI am currently using content repository based on JCR 2.2.9.=0A= I want to connect to this repository via WebDav connector.=0AI was able to = connect to this through WebDav and was even able to perform different repos= itory operations through it but the problem is its performance.=0AAs compar= ed to RMI it is very slow.=0AI tried to fine tune its performance through i= tem cache info and batch read depth but the improvement is not so significa= nt.=0AWhen I tried to compare the console logs of both RMI and WebDav I fou= nd out that for the same request number of Log In Log out for WebDav is muc= h greater than compared to number of Log In Log out in case of RMI.As I am = using authentication while login through my own configured AccessManager an= d LoginModule that uses a web service for doing so, I think login so many t= ime is a big overhead.(May be the problem can be somewhere else but this se= ems to me as the problem).=0ACan anyone help me in this regard ?=A0=0APleas= e help.=0A=0AManav=A0 ---1182121852-1154970894-1322991271=:71378--