On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:03:59 +0100, Kirk Pepperdine
<[email protected]> wrote:
All nice points.
I would add.. avoid transactions like the plague.
Single threaded will be easier to scale out.. (think http)
+1 on keep things in memory.. in fact I've customers that no longer put
disks in their machines.. which surprisingly increases reliability..
(which really shouldn't be surprising).
+1 on everything, including the last point, but you can have a hard time
to persuade customers acquainted to the database for decades. It's
possible to use a hybrid approach: for instance Coherence (but AFAIK other
similar products) has got a "write behind" mode in which you basically
commit to memory, and then an async task pushes stuff to the database. I'm
trying to persuade a customer to go that way, but I still see raised
eyebrows. But perhaps we'll be able to start some serious prototyping in
the next months.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
[email protected]
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
