Hello, I'm interested in estimating performance (and load) impacts of ACL checking on read access. I'm specifically interested in a comparison where paths like /a, /a/b, /a/b/c, /a/.../y/z are accessed, and ACL has to be evaluated "upwards" on the path. Since such a test is more high-level and may suffer from many side-effects, it's probably more of a load test than a performance test.
Are there any test results available with respect to ACL, comparing Jackrabbit with Oak? Are there any load test results available comparing Jackrabbit with Oak? Can you point me to the code of these benchmarks? Cheers Lukas On 4/26/13 1:12 PM, "Jukka Zitting" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> >wrote: >> Here's a few more simple benchmark results to show where we are: > >Updated numbers with latest Oak: > > # ReadPropertyTest min 10% 50% 90% max > N > Jackrabbit 34 35 37 60 110 > 1333 > Oak-Default 8 9 9 20 76 > 4972 > Oak-Mongo 10 10 11 34 38 > 4501 > Oak-Segment 13 13 14 37 44 > 3482 > # SmallFileReadTest min 10% 50% 90% max > N > Jackrabbit 50 52 76 117 622 > 764 > Oak-Default 51 53 77 390 496 > 483 > Oak-Mongo 159 160 184 517 657 > 259 > Oak-Segment 15 16 17 40 86 > 2813 > # SmallFileWriteTest min 10% 50% 90% max > N > Jackrabbit 181 200 250 469 1088 > 105 > Oak-Default 169 180 232 429 923 > 107 > Oak-Mongo 698 727 886 1051 1066 > 26 > Oak-Segment 221 247 262 337 651 > 77 > >Overall that's pretty nice progress. Apart from a few exceptions, >we're now better (sometimes significantly so) or on par with >Jackrabbit 2.x in these benchmarks. > >BR, > >Jukka Zitting
