On 08.02.13 14:06, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote:
> Thanks for jumping in.
JCS became my playground by accident, after all. :-)
> props.put("jcs.region.robotCache", "DC, LTCP");
I'm not sure if it makes sense to have two auxiliaries for the region.
I'd try to get the lateral thing working first.
> props.put("jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.AllowGet",
> "true");
Try to set this to false. The idea is that if some member of the lateral
cache puts an item, it will be distributed to all the others. So there
is actually no need to allow gets throughout the group.
> 2013-02-08 07:41:27,243 [CacheEventQueue.QProcessor-robotCache] ERROR
> org.apache.jcs.auxiliary.lateral.socket.tcp.LateralTCPSender -
...
There is not much we can do about this in 1.3 Would you please open a
JIRA issue talking about "excessive logging" and I'll try to consider
this for 2.0. You may try to configure this specific class logger to be
silent.
> As you can see, the map sizes are very different on the 2 servers when
> I will have expected hem to be pretty identicals... and it's the same
> on all the servers. all have different map size.
Your stats look a bit strange to me. However I wouldn't care too much
for them. Remember that the cache is not guaranteed to be consistent.
JCS is a cache, not a key-value-store.
> So I'm wondering if the lateral cache is really used. I will say yes
> because I'm getting the exceptions when one server is going down, but
> I'm not seeing the benefits yet.
Well, benefits should be there, even if its difficult to see them from
the statistics. You would be able to see this on an application level,
that is, if an item available in one cache actually saves the expensive
get operation from the original source in another. This would need some
debugging, I'm afraid.
HTH
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
