Hi - On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 03/12/10 01:05 PM, Masood Mortazavi wrote: > >> I am wondering about any limitations regarding the number of Derby >> instances that can be embedded in a JVM ... (assuming adjustments to >> heap-size, etc., have been made) ... >> > > Hi Masood, > > I haven't tried this myself, but I've heard people talking about having > about 1000 instances in the same JVM and getting them to run reasonably > well. > I wonder whether all these instances in the same VM can be configured to have their own distinct storage, and whether that's the configuration used in the above case. > The main issues were inefficient use of the heap for caching data (since > each instance has its own page cache) so that each instance would have to > run with a very small page cache to prevent exhausting the heap, and a high > number of background threads (this problem is logged as DERBY-4210). > Right. However, can the background threads issue be avoided if all these instances have their own distinct "connection" and "storage"? > Others who have actually tried this might want to add to this or correct me > if I've got this wrong, though... > Yes, it would be good to hear from others who may have tried it. > Hope this helps, > > -- > Knut Anders > Yes, it does. I really appreciate your taking the time to write your note. Thanks, -m.
