I am getting ready to recommend Cocoon for a very large project where it will need to handle immense load. In reality, XSP is more than I need and I don't expect to be using it. From what I have read, most of the scalability problems seem to be XSP related - can anyone confrim or reject that thought for me?
> ---------- > From: Michael Homeijer[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:03 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Cocoon scalability continued > > Hi, > > This mail is a follow-up to the following mails: > > (Cocoon 2 RC2 performance disappointment). > http://www.mail-archive.com/cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org/msg06455.html > > and > > (Cocoon 2.0 Scalability Disappointment) > http://www.mail-archive.com/cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org/msg06751.html > > In the last weeks we observed that Cocoon performance and scalability are > greatly influenced by a number of factors, to name a few: > - Complexity of pipelines (slows down pipeline composition) > > Stefano mentioned to me that entire pipelines can be pooled. > > Can anybody give me some directions on how to accomplish this? > > - Size of the documents going through the pipeline (slows down translations) > - Size of the documents that will be cached (caching appears to be very time > consuming) > - Number of templates in the XSL translation (xsl tuning is very difficult) > > To tune our C2 based site we tried three ways of implementing our website, > all with different approaches. The approach we thought should be the one > with the best performance/scalability turned out worse than the C1 > implementation (performance of the three range from several times slower > than the C1 implementation to 10% faster). > > Luckily, with the new component approach it was just a few days work (mainly > changing places of caching and XSL translations) to get a better > performance(10% on the C1 approach, and we think we can get further now we > know which strings to pull. Furthermore we didn't try the generator based > approach yet instead of XSP). > > But then again, I don't think every project will get this far... > > and I think that new versions of Cocoon will show a very different > performance/scalability profile (once the new cache, > sitemap approach or new Xalan versions are released), this could also be > dangerous without some sort of performance prediction model. > > In the weeks we tried to tune our C2 based site, we went from designing and > implementing to a more trial and error approach in configuring the > pipelines. Because of the unpredictable results (because of complexity or > lack of experience on our side?) and the pressure from our customer the team > spirit went down. Furthermore it's hard to derive best practices or some > golden rule from our work. > > Because of this I think it is not enough to have a cache that tunes itself > or a profiler. It will help but only once your site is up and running. > Because of the many ways of implementing a C2 site, I think there should be > some kind of prediction model that shows how to structure functionality in > C2. > > I don't have a clear idea on what this should look like, but maybe someone > can comment on our experiences. > > TIA, > Michael Homeijer. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
