Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> Michael Hartle wrote:
>
> > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> >>> Net Result: I think Cocoon 2.0, as it stands, doesn't scale, but the
> >>> data provided it's not sufficient to understand *what* slows Cocoon
> >>> down.
> >>>
> >>> Michael, I'd love if you guys could perform some more load tests for us:
> >>>
> >> 0) before disabling logging, search for messages such as
> >> "decommissioning instance of...". This reveals some undersized pools
> >> which are corrected by tuning cocoon.xconf and sitemap.xmap. Undersized
> >> pools act like an object factory, plus the ComponentManager overhead.
> >>
> > Just a thought, as not tuning the pools is probably going to be a common
> > and easy mistake for people who are starting to evaluate Cocoon and get
> > bad performance results, what about an adaptable pool which starts
> > tuning its configuration after a while depending on usage ? Is this
> > achievable at all ?
>
> It is achievable. I have not gotten around to doing it yet.
Look into JServ, there's one already written.
By me :)
Peter didn't consider this important enough to enter Avalon, but I still
think my pool code is the most flexible one. We could move it overhere
and use it.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
