"gobrien" wrote : Adrian, | | Do you believe there is a need for a File System Based Persistence Manager, or do you believe that JDBC persistence suits everyone?s needs? |
If there really is/was a real need then somebody would have fixed the file PM by now. Somebody may even have already done it, but not contributed it back? anonymous wrote : | Is there going to be a non-JDBC persistence method in the future, or a JDBC one that retains the performance of the current file system based method? | The JDBC PM requires tuning, like the connection pool, prepared statement cache, db tables, etc. anonymous wrote : | The only JDBC interface that could get near the speed of java writing to a local file system is a database server that runs inside the same jvm (like Hypersonic). Removing the extra TCP traffic required to stream the blob to the database. But currently Hypersonic is not up to the task. | That is an issue for the hypersonic developers. anonymous wrote : | Another possible answer is to have the blob part of the message stored locally and everything else in the database. As it is streaming of the blob that slows down the database, as they don't like store large byte arrays (that?s what file systems are used for.) | Which doesn't work in a cluster (unless you have a "clustered" HA file system). anonymous wrote : | I'm disappointed that you rejected bug fixes on the basis that you believe the file based solution has 'fundamental problems with the implementation'. I guess there are other users of this PM that would have benefited from their efforts. | And if they were serious about maintaining their features (not bug fixes) they would have fixed the bugs. anonymous wrote : | Currently as JBoss 4.0 exists I can not recommend that any of our customers use JBoss 4.0, as the performance penalty for reliable JDBC peristence is too high. That is your assessment. When I measured it back in 3.0.x days before taking the decision to switch JDBC, I saw local MySQL work just as fast (if not faster - which only shows that the MySQL team are better are doing logging that the File PM implementation) and that was before JBoss JDBC supported prepared statement caching. Of course, the relative performance and tuning of indexes/disks/memory/OS/JVMs will likely be different to what I tested then and what you are using now. The decision wasn't based performance anyway, it was based on reliability. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3880659#3880659 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3880659 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
