[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Knut Anders Hatlen updated DERBY-2911:
--------------------------------------
Derby Info: (was: [Patch Available])
Committed d2911-14.diff with revision 642752.
Committed d2911-15.diff with revision 642755.
I think all comments have been addressed now, and I'm not planning any more
patches on this issue. Some of the patches have only been committed to trunk
(revisions 635577, 636247, 636670, 642752 and 642755). None of them needs to go
to the 10.4 branch, but unless there are objections, I'll merge them to
minimize the difference between trunk and the branch (which makes it easier to
map stack traces from bug reports against 10.4 to the code in trunk).
> Implement a buffer manager using java.util.concurrent classes
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2911
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, Services
> Affects Versions: 10.4.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: cleaner.diff, cleaner.tar, d2911-1.diff, d2911-1.stat,
> d2911-10.diff, d2911-10.stat, d2911-11.diff, d2911-12.diff, d2911-13.diff,
> d2911-14.diff, d2911-15.diff, d2911-2.diff, d2911-3.diff, d2911-4.diff,
> d2911-5.diff, d2911-6.diff, d2911-6.stat, d2911-7.diff, d2911-7a.diff,
> d2911-9.diff, d2911-9.stat, d2911-enable.diff, d2911-entry-javadoc.diff,
> d2911-unused.diff, d2911-unused.stat, d2911perf.java, derby-2911-8.diff,
> derby-2911-8.stat, perftest.diff, perftest.pdf, perftest.stat,
> perftest2.diff, perftest6.pdf, poisson_patch8.tar
>
>
> There are indications that the buffer manager is a bottleneck for some types
> of multi-user load. For instance, Anders Morken wrote this in a comment on
> DERBY-1704: "With a separate table and index for each thread (to remove latch
> contention and lock waits from the equation) we (...) found that
> org.apache.derby.impl.services.cache.Clock.find()/release() caused about 5
> times more contention than the synchronization in LockSet.lockObject() and
> LockSet.unlock(). That might be an indicator of where to apply the next push".
> It would be interesting to see the scalability and performance of a buffer
> manager which exploits the concurrency utilities added in Java SE 5.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
