jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
Subject Re: FW: Jackrabbits reliability and performance
Date Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:51:24 GMT
Remember that Jackrabbit is a free, open source project and you are 
talking to other users, not sales or support people.
If you want a consultant who will analyze your requirements and give you 
a professional opinion, you have to hire one.
Here, you are getting other users who can share their experience.
You have to decide if their situation and results apply to your situation.


On 14/11/2013 11:21 AM, Tarun Dogra wrote:
> Hi Enrique,
> Thanks for the detailed reply. Unfortunately, I am not familiarised with the nodes and
the BTree side of Jackrabbit framework. So I was expecting an answer in terms of the overall
picture of how Jackrabbit as a JCR will fit in to our system.
> In brief, we need to integrate Jackrabbit (as advised by our vendor) in to our clinical
trial management system. For this, I have already provided you with the server specification
on which the system will be hosted. So just wanted to know if on such server, Jackrabbit is
capable enough to intake approximately 15GB data per year and be able to manage those many
documents/files (as mentioned before) without being affected in terms of its performance?
We already know it is a much stabilised JCR, but we just wanted to confirm if such system
is able to suffice our organisation’s requirements.
> Regards,
> Tarun
> From: Enrique Medina Montenegro [mailto:e.medina.m@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2013 14:29
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org<mailto:users@jackrabbit.apache.org>
> Cc: Mark Essex
> Subject: Re: Jackrabbits reliability and performance
> Hi Tarun,
> Let me share my findings with you :-)
> At my work we are evaluating the use of Jackrabbit to build a JCR repository to store
the register of marks (intellectual property) as documents composed basically of an ID, some
metadata (who created it, when, etc.) and the XML and JSON representation of the mark itself.
Currently, we have all that information spread in several relational DBs and we would like
to take advantage of the versioning and observation features of the JCR repository.
> During our initial evaluation, mostly focused on performance, we noticed serious issues
when adding the 1 million marks we have currently in our DBs underneath the same "parent"
node, but we found out that this was actually a known limitation by Jackrabbit, which clearly
states that no more than 10K child nodes should be added to the same "parent "node:
> http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Performance
> However, we were still sort of forced to follow that path because we were required to
perform an initial dump of all the data in the DBs, and just adding each mark as a sub-mode
proved to be the fastest way to export all the data in an acceptable window frame.
> Nevertheless, we also tried to shard the nodes as a tree, basically splitting the 9-digit
ID of our marks into 3-digit groups, so each node could only have as much as 1K sub-nodes
within itself. For example, mark with ID = 000342865 would be saved into --> root (node)
-> marks (node) -> 000 (node) -> 342 (node) --> 000342865 (node). Theoretically,
this would perform much better than our original approach, but as a downside, it would dramatically
slow down the time it takes to export the 1M marks from the DBs, going further out of our
acceptable window frame (due to the fact that, for each mark, it had to previously look up
the exact node where to store it, and the bigger the JCR repository was growing, the slower
the node lookup times were, therefore impacting the overall export process).
> We also took a look at the BTreeManager, but we just couldn't make it work due to the
issue I describe here (which BTW has not been answered yet):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-users/201311.mbox/ajax/%3CCA%2BdeSP_weUQ0mtSBjoQGy3jq60jZEo7LtmF9kJZkvF1eyNvu-A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> So getting back to the original approach of storing everything under the same node, how
did we manage to get acceptable read times? Well, it boils down to using Lucene's indexation
(configured properly to only index the "id" property, and not all the XML and JSON stuff -
using the IndexingConfiguration in the Search section of the repository config file) to actually
perform the search/retrieval of marks. So for instance, instead of:
> session.getNode("/marks/000342865") --> takes ~2.4segs with 1M marks under the same
> we run this query with SQL2:
> SELECT * FROM markType WHERE id = '000342865' --> takes tens of ms with 1M marks under
the same node thanks to Lucene's indexes
> (notice that "markType" is a custom node type that we have created to model our domain,
in this case the marks)
> LESSONS LEARNED: You need to clearly define the scope of your project in terms of the
functionality you're willing to use from Jackrabbit, and then plan for detailed performance
workshops to prove your approach. There are always trade-offs (for instance, in my case, when
I want to get the specific version of a mark, I cannot use the "official" API through "VersionManager"
because it uses direct path to fetch the node prior to getting the revision --> session.getWorkspace().getVersionManager().getVersionHistory("/marks/000342865").getVersionByLabel("v.6.0"),
and I have to use the "deprecated" API method from the node itself, once I've got it using
the SQL2 statement mentioned above --> markNode.getVersionHistory().getVersionByLabel("v.6.0"),
with the uncertainty on when that deprecated API will be removed...).
> Please share your findings in the list as you make progress :-)
> Regards,
> Enrique Medina.
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Tarun Dogra <Tarun.Dogra@orioncro.com<mailto:Tarun.Dogra@orioncro.com>>
> Respected Sir/Madam,
> In the next couple of months, we (ORION Clinical Services Ltd., UK) are about to release
a clinical trial management system as a product to be used in-house by all our employees.
We have bought this product off the shelf from a third party vendor. As suggested by our vendor,
we would implement JackRabbit as the central repository system within this main product. But
we are still not sure whether jackrabbit is an ideal solution to be integrated with our product
and this is where we will need your help and would appreciate if you could share your expertise.
> Just to give you an overview of our organisation, we will have around 7500 documents
(each of size 250K approximately on an average) per "study" within our clinical trial management
framework. We usually take on board  around 7-8 such studies per year. So, on the basis of
8 studies per year, the total size of all the documents will grow to 7500 x 250 x 8 = 15GB
approximately per year. So just wanted to know a couple of things from you:
> 1.       Is Jackrabbit reliable enough as a system to cater to our above mentioned needs?
> 2.       Will the management of so many documents have any adverse effects on jackrabbit's
performance? - considering that Jackrabbit will reside on one of our own hosted server with
the following spec -
> Poweredge R710
> CPU: 2 x Intel X5550
> Memory: 16GB
> Operating System: Windows 2008 R2 64bit SP1
> Disk capacity: C: 142gb and D: 1.22Tb
> Sorry if you are not the correct department to consult to in regards to our above mentioned
concern and if this is the case, it will be much appreciated if you could direct us to the
right department/person? Many thanks.
> Look forward to hearing from you.
> Regards,
> Tarun

Ron Wheeler
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

View raw message