whirr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Baclace <paul.bacl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Provisioning as a Dedicated Service
Date Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:24:35 GMT
On 20130209 4:37 , Andrei Savu wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Paul Baclace <paul.baclace@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any rough idea of state transition latency and throughput you
>> get when using Activiti and how this compares to using Whirr/jclouds in a
>> single process?
>>
> Is this important? During pool creation most of the time is spent in loops
> waiting for external services. We try to keep each activity as short as
> possible to avoid long running transactions.
>
>> The reason I ask is that although Activiti has good support for designing
>> processes and programmatic control of the engine, it is necessarily DB
>> transaction limited. An obvious alternative design is to use something that
>> is actor based which can run entirely in RAM. I admit that an actor control
>> system would make it harder to trace what happened, compared to business
>> process control which is very much oriented toward human-in-the-loop.
>>
> I think it's going to take while for us to hit that limitation. I see good
> performance even if we are using an embedded H2 database - it should work a
> lot better with a PostgresSQL server. It's true that Activiti is oriented
> towards human-in-the-loop processes but it works well also for unsupervised
> ones.
>
>
As long as the orchestration is at the appropriate granularity (not 
micro-managing), then using Activiti should be fine. Another thing it 
can do that is more challenging for a single machine actor system is 
preserve state across controller restarts.

Paul


Mime
View raw message