On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:03:54AM -0400, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>>
>> ZEO had a bug, fixed in rev 73871, where it would spend up to 10ms (your
>> OSes scheduling timeslice) in idle sleep for every object received from
>> th
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:03:54AM -0400, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:32:53PM +0200, Ingvar Hagelund wrote:
> > We have an solution based on a third party zope based framework, with 12
> > Zope instances accessing ZODB via ZEO.
> ...
> > Now, writing to the ZEO database is v
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Ingvar Hagelund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, writing to the ZEO database is very slow
Hard to tell the cause of that from here. Strace, tcpdump, and
wireshark are my friends.
> and the same goes for
> searching, which is a problem for the users that put inf
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:32:53PM +0200, Ingvar Hagelund wrote:
> We have an solution based on a third party zope based framework, with 12
> Zope instances accessing ZODB via ZEO.
...
> Now, writing to the ZEO database is very slow, and the same goes for
> searching, which is a problem for the use
Hello, list
We have an solution based on a third party zope based framework, with 12
Zope instances accessing ZODB via ZEO. Backend storage is Data.fs. For
reading we use Zeo client caching, and a Squid reverse proxy in front of
Zope, giving very good performance for most of the end users. ZEO/ZOD
