I have built an ehcache implementation, but it really was slower. The thing is, writing to disk has a very little overhead. We keep certain amount of the file handles open so vast majority of writes is cached by the filesystem. So instead of lot of small writes there are way less frequent writes bigger amounts of data.
I really see no benefit at all in using ehcache. -Matej On Jan 6, 2008 10:19 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on the subject of 2nd level cache stores, how feasible would it be to use > ehcache as a backing store? ehcache can store things in memory, and overflow > to disk making it a hybrid to our disk based storage. > Is it reasonable to consider a caching solution such as ehcache to provide > the backend storage? > > Did we ever consider ehcache as an alternative? If so, why did we not pick > it? > > Martijn > > -- > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst > Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0 >
