Something I’ve wondered about since SSD drives became available… When implementing this using HOWL logger, the idea I had was to try to queue up stuff in the transaction log and release the transactions when the disk spun around and claimed to have written the bits onto rust. IIRC there’s a 10 ms time somewhere, which I thought was the time taken to actually write something. I could never find out for sure if the code actually worked and succeeded in defeating the hard drive’s built in caching.
Now that SSDs are common, I wonder if a completely different logger implementation would be reasonable. (I haven’t looked at the code in years, but haven’t noticed any changes go by on the mailing list). David Jencks > On Feb 11, 2021, at 8:53 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > Hi Florent, > > Maybe we can start with a set of Jira or discussion on the mailing list. > > I think it makes sense to move forward on geronimo-transaction and prepare a > new release. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > >> Le 11 févr. 2021 à 22:50, Florent Guillaume <fguilla...@nuxeo.com >> <mailto:fguilla...@nuxeo.com>> a écrit : >> >> Hi, >> >> Is there any interest in modernizing geronimo-transaction a bit? Is there >> any chance of then doing a release in the not too distant future if some >> patches get accepted (i.e., is geronimo-transaction completely dead or not)? >> >> FYI my first changes would probably be to allow usage of a java.time.Clock >> for time measurement and timeout management, in order to allow better (and >> faster) unit testing. >> >> Thanks, >> Florent >> >> -- >> <https://www.nuxeo.com/> >> Florent Guillaume Head of R&D <https://www.linkedin.com/in/fguillaume/> >> <https://twitter.com/efge> <https://github.com/efge> >> Nuxeo Content Services Platform. Stay ahead. >> >
