Marcel Reutegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

this is not quite true. the actual store operation on the persistence manager 
is synchronized. however most of the write calls from different threads to the 
JCR api in jackrabbit will not block each other because those changes are made 
in a private transient scope. only the final save or commit of the transaction 
is serialized. that's only one part of the whole write process

But in fact in real application most of business method ends with either save, checkin or commit, and in consequence concurrent calls of this methods will block each other and wait for storing modified data. We are using versioning feature intensively, and we have performance problems mainly with write operations. Additionally we notice big performance degradation when we switch to SimpleDBPersistenceManager with MySQL or other db using network communications. So it looks like overall performance depends much on PM implementation because all save/checkin operations wait for PM until he finish all his work. One solution to avoid blocking write operations could be special thread/s responsible for flushing data to PM, but i don't think so that Jackrabbit uses asynchronous processing.

even if such a persistence manager allows concurrent writes, it is still the 
responsibility of the caller to ensure consistency. in our case that's the 
SharedItemStateManager. And that's the place where transactions are currently 
serialized, but only on commit.
If concurrent write performance should become a real issue that's where we 
first have to deal with it.

If there exists any singleton component on top of PM, which is reponsible for serializing all saves, checkins or transactions then naturally using connection pools doesn't help, but maybe it means that Jackrabbit is not designed to work effectively in multithreaded environment.

Even if usage of connection pool is not reasonable in current design, I think it is worth to consider JDBC batch updates instead of single updates to gain better DBPM performance.

Regards
Przemo Pakulski
www.cognifide.com

Reply via email to