Ok, I think I get it :-) One more questionL if I would have sticky
sessions, and no page back functionality, would I still need wicket to
serialize?
Technically not, if you really don't need page back functionality (are
you sure you can enforce that?), than it would suffice to just have
the
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ard Schrijvers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Again, serialization and writing to filesystem are two
completely different things.
Are you *really* sure that the writing (which is done in
separate thread btw) is really the bottleneck? I have
No, I am not
Hello,
Again, serialization and writing to filesystem are two
completely different things.
Are you *really* sure that the writing (which is done in
separate thread btw) is really the bottleneck? I have
No, I am not really sure. But, I suspect(ed...i am in doubt now :-) )
the writing mainly
Hello Igor and Timo,
Sorry for my really way to late response, I was caught up entirely by
some stressful tasks which needed to be finished.
I currently do not have statistics, but I could have a cpu yourkit
snapshot. I have seen up to 75% cpu in the serialization and
deserialization. Recently
Thanks a lot Richard,
I will take a look!
Regards Ard
The wicket integration with terracotta uses an in-memory page map.
The code is here, but will soon be part of the terracotta wicket-tim.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p19826206/TerracottaPageStore.java
TerracottaPageStore.java
Hello Matej,
I'd really be interested in how exactly did you come to
conclusion that DiskPageStore writing to disk is the
bottleneck. Unless your filesystem caching is broken :)
Hmmm, don't think the filesystem cache is broken. I am working with
filesystem caches and lucene a lot and don't
but serialization and writing to disk are 2 different things.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ard Schrijvers [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hello Igor and Timo,
Sorry for my really way to late response, I was caught up entirely by
some stressful tasks which needed to be finished.
I currently do
I should say that the terracotta page map also does the page serialisation,
but it does it all in memory.
You could probably write out the serialisation bit quite easily, but it is
required for terracotta.
Ard Schrijvers-3 wrote:
Thanks a lot Richard,
I will take a look!
Regards Ard
but serialization and writing to disk are 2 different things.
Yes sorry for the confusion. I intertwine the serialization and disk
performance (hence asking whether a memory page store exists) because
AFAIU, it is the serialized pagemaps that are being written to
filesystem. Indeed, when using
The HttpSessionStore is an in memory session store, so it has no disk writing
bottleneck. It does however have some other problems, specifically with the
back button i think.
the terracotta page store works like this:
protected ISessionStore newSessionStore()
{
return
Great, I'll check out the code for the TerracottaPageStore,
Thanks a lot Richard,
Regards Ard
The HttpSessionStore is an in memory session store, so it has
no disk writing bottleneck. It does however have some other
problems, specifically with the back button i think.
the terracotta
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Ard Schrijvers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Matej,
I'd really be interested in how exactly did you come to
conclusion that DiskPageStore writing to disk is the
bottleneck. Unless your filesystem caching is broken :)
Hmmm, don't think the filesystem cache is
The wicket integration with terracotta uses an in-memory page map.
The code is here, but will soon be part of the terracotta wicket-tim.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p19826206/TerracottaPageStore.java
TerracottaPageStore.java
Timo Rantalaiho wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
I'd really be interested in how exactly did you come to conclusion
that DiskPageStore writing to disk is the bottleneck. Unless your
filesystem caching is
broken :)
Serialization takes a significant part of request processing, but that
is necessary.
-Matej
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ard
do you have some statistics for us? or some profiler timing screenshots?
-igor
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Ard Schrijvers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everybody,
Did anybody perhaps ever implement a memory version of the
AbstractPageStore. Currently, I only see a DiskPageStore, which
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
do you have some statistics for us? or some profiler timing screenshots?
While waiting for the reply from Ard... I remember hearing
of a case where the pagemaps were stored to a directory that
the virus scanner was monitoring, and the scanner hogged all
16 matches
Mail list logo
