[ZODB-Dev] Re: Zope 2.8.1 (was RE: TmpStore missing loadBefore)
--On 29. Juni 2005 10:38:27 -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Andreas Jung] The Plone guys asked about a 2.8.1 release for end of July/start of August which should not be a problem. Since they are working on making Plone 2.1 work with Zope 2.8 there is a good chance that further bugs show up which should be fixed for 2.8.1. So 2.8.1 b1 could be released in the last week of July and a final release maybe one or two weeks later (hopefully before my vacation in mid-August). For reference, looks like this info has been fleshed out put the web since you wrote the above: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan and at the very bottom of that: 2.8.1 b1: 2005/7/20 2.8.1 final: 2005/08/03 This was my original plan but I pulled the dates to be one week later but obviously the the wiki page did not save (the [EMAIL PROTECTED] sucks). Andreas pgpkS9Adj0wbl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
RE: [ZODB-Dev] Handling more databases with zeo
[Tim Peters] As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg). [Lukas Linhart] Well, I'm stuck on zodb 3.2.x line because I'm using IndexedCatalog. If serving multiple databases from one ZEO server works for you, I'm not going to go out of my way to break it (OTOH, if it doesn't work for you, I'm not going out of my way to fix it either). ... I think I'll run zeo per db, just for sure :) I don't think it that my serveradmin will be happy, but...whatever :) Well, another ZEO is another process -- doesn't sound like a big deal to me. In industrial strength setups, it's normal to run multiple ZEO servers on multiple machines, or at least to arrange that each database lives on a different physical disk drive. A ZEO server doesn't cache any object state in memory, so if it's using FileStorage it needs to seek in the .fs file on each object request. That can get pretty dreadful if it needs to do physical seeks in multiple database files on the same disk simultaneously. Putting each database on a different disk makes life easier for the HW (seeks can proceed truly in parallel then); putting each on a different machine gives OS disk caching a better chance at avoiding physical disk seeks. ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
RE: Re: [ZODB-Dev] Handling more databases with zeo
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-6-28 17:09 -0400: As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg). I do not know whether it is supported but it works in ZODB 3.2. Why do you want to cancel this? How do I connect to filestorage 2 (I thought that 1 and 2 are aliases)? If it works at all, the only way would be to add a storage 2 It does in ZODB 3.2. -- Dieter ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
RE: Re: [ZODB-Dev] Handling more databases with zeo
[Tim Peters] As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg). [Dieter Maurer] I do not know whether it is supported but it works in ZODB 3.2. Why do you want to cancel this? I didn't say I would cancel it / rip it out. I said it's undocumented, untested, and that its status is unclear; and I quoted a comment from current ZODB source that strongly seemed to imply its author (probably Jeremy) believed it was already dead meat (This argument is primarily for backwards compatibility with servers that supported multiple storages -- why did the comment use past tense if the current code still supports multiple storages? I don't know, and finding out would take time away from other things; given that Lukas had been trying to get an answer about this one for well over a month, and nobody was able to tell him anything useful, I have to conclude this feature is so little used it deserves no priority over other pressing issues.). If somebody _wants_ this gimmick, the best way to ensure it remains is to contribute documentation and tests for it. As is, assuming it still works at all, I expect it could be (or perhaps already has been) broken purely by accident. ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: Re: [ZODB-Dev] Handling more databases with zeo
On 6/29/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Tim Peters] As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg). [Dieter Maurer] I do not know whether it is supported but it works in ZODB 3.2. Why do you want to cancel this? I didn't say I would cancel it / rip it out. I said it's undocumented, untested, and that its status is unclear; and I quoted a comment from current ZODB source that strongly seemed to imply its author (probably Jeremy) believed it was already dead meat (This argument is primarily for backwards compatibility with servers that supported multiple storages -- why did the comment use past tense if the current code still supports multiple storages? I used the past tense because I thought we had decided to cancel the feature at some point. The feature itself has been around and undocumented for much longer. The reason I want to remove the feature is that it adds complexity to the software and configuration without providing much real benefit. The benefit is that you get to run several storages using a single ZEO server process and TCP port. It's probably not a good idea to use a single process for many servers, although it might be convenient to use a single port. Reasons to get rid of it (recalling these from the distant past): - People were confused about what the feature actually did. I helped people several people debug problems that were caused by confusion around this feature. - It's probably better to run separate ZEO processes (possibly on different machines). - There would be less code to maintain and few features to test. Jeremy ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: Re: [ZODB-Dev] Handling more databases with zeo
I also use this feature but I would be happy to stop using it if it made the code materially simpler to maintain. - C On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 15:31 -0400, Jeremy Hylton wrote: On 6/29/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Tim Peters] As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg). [Dieter Maurer] I do not know whether it is supported but it works in ZODB 3.2. Why do you want to cancel this? I didn't say I would cancel it / rip it out. I said it's undocumented, untested, and that its status is unclear; and I quoted a comment from current ZODB source that strongly seemed to imply its author (probably Jeremy) believed it was already dead meat (This argument is primarily for backwards compatibility with servers that supported multiple storages -- why did the comment use past tense if the current code still supports multiple storages? I used the past tense because I thought we had decided to cancel the feature at some point. The feature itself has been around and undocumented for much longer. The reason I want to remove the feature is that it adds complexity to the software and configuration without providing much real benefit. The benefit is that you get to run several storages using a single ZEO server process and TCP port. It's probably not a good idea to use a single process for many servers, although it might be convenient to use a single port. Reasons to get rid of it (recalling these from the distant past): - People were confused about what the feature actually did. I helped people several people debug problems that were caused by confusion around this feature. - It's probably better to run separate ZEO processes (possibly on different machines). - There would be less code to maintain and few features to test. Jeremy ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
