On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 05:05, Alwyn Schoeman wrote: > Hi, > > I've been doing some testing and found that the file persistence manager is > considerably faster than a jdbc one hosted on the same machine. > > Would it be faster to remote database due to reduced cpu utilization from local > database? >
When I looked at this before, I found jdbc drivers generate a large amount of garbage which causes some slowdown due to increased gcs. Are you using transactions? It is on my list of things to do to create indices over JMS_MESSAGES for the runtime queries of jdbc2 when jboss creates the tables. Chances are it is doing a full table scan. The cpu consumed by the db will obviously slowdown jboss. Even when jboss does not need a lot of cpu, it will be getting less timeslice. > When would a jdbc persistence manager make sense compared to a file based one? See below and jdbc2 let's you store the messages remotely. The file based pms don't work very well with a large number of persistent messages. Messages that don't fit in memory are flushed to a cache store on disk. For the file pms this means the messages are stored twice (the cache and pm don't know about each other). jdbc2 implements the cache so flushing a persistent message from memory is a no-op. > Do clustering have any impact on these considerations? > No, but a db should be more fault tolerant than any file based system the jboss developers can write. Regards, Adrian > Regards, -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Adrian Brock Director of Support Back Office JBoss Group, LLC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program. Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open Source Community? Make a contribution, and help us add new features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
