Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We were using Jisp and Scott's decision makes it clear that we either: > > - have to maintain Jisp 2.x ourselves > > or > > - use something else > > Here I would like to ask you a much easier question: do we > really need > it? can't we just our storage into a bunch directories and > use that as a > file system? that works very well for file-intensive setups like mail > client/servers and browser caches, why shouldn't it work for us? > > My gut feelins is that having such a critical piece of our > infrastructure so away from the metal is actually hurting us, both > performance and complexity wise. > > I would love to use BerkeleyDB, but it's native, incompatibly > licensed > and has terrible Java APIs. And all the problems of binary > stores: you > can't see inside from your shell! > > I think that a better use of the file system would yield much more > performance, since JVM IO is pretty much optimized for file access > anyway (and uses OS-level caching). > > thoughts? >
Makes sense to me: from what I understand of the issue the store is (mostly?) not updatable (you either do a write or a read)? If so you don't need a database; file systems are actually very efficient for that kind of thing...
