On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:23, Tim Peters wrote:
> The size of the objects in the database has little to do with memory
> consumed by a FileStorage pack; it's more the number of distinct object
> revisions at work, since an in-memory object reachability graph is
> constructed. I'm not sure how
Tim Peters wrote:
The non-zope client has logic that looks roughly like:
for work in queue:
try:
get_transaction().begin()
# do work, change zodb objects, etc
get_transaction().commit()
except ConflictError:
get_transaction().abort()
queue.append(work)
except:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:57:07PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
> Okay, where in the above should I be calling sync()?
> Where do I get sync from? get_transaction() doesn't have a synch attribute..
On the Connection, of course
Take care,
--
Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [
Dear all,
We're using ZOPE 2.7.3 with its default Python, ZEO, and ZODB versions under
Windows 2000 Server SP3. This is a 2xXeon machine, but Python is bound to a
single CPU.
One of our(non-data.fs) ZODBs consists of a OOBTree with about 50,000
well-ordered tuple keys and Persistence.Persiste
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:57:07PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Okay, where in the above should I be calling sync()?
Where do I get sync from? get_transaction() doesn't have a synch attribute..
On the Connection, of course
And how do I get hold of the connection? Is
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:39:03PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
> >>Okay, where in the above should I be calling sync()?
> >>Where do I get sync from? get_transaction() doesn't have a synch
> >>attribute..
> >
> >On the Connection, of course
>
> And how do I get hold of the connection? Is that th
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
It is the official way to call sync(), yes. I don't know how you do it
in Zope, but the connection is what DB.open() returns, and is also
attached to persisted objects as the _p_jar attribute.
Hmm, does anyone know the "right" way to get this in Zope?
If I do someobj.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:16PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
(snip)
> ... I'd
> reserve intense dislike for, e.g., __no_side_effects__ (remember that one?).
Yes, I found it recently when I fixed a bug in ZopeUndo/Prefix.py.
Does anything actually rely on that attribute, and what for?
The only chec
On 4/15/05, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Short course: A ZEO client needs to run an asyncore mainloop if it wants to
> > get invalidations processed "by magic". Alternatives include calling
> > sync(), or closing and (re)opening the connection, at appropriate times.
>
> Hurm, thi
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
It's mentioned in the documentation -- see section 3.4 ZEO programming
notes -- and it's been discussed on this list many, many times.
Where are these notes?
It sounds like the simplest approach for your application is to do
like Zope and start a separate thread that runs an as
On 4/15/05, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> >
> > It's mentioned in the documentation -- see section 3.4 ZEO programming
> > notes -- and it's been discussed on this list many, many times.
>
> Where are these notes?
In the ZODB & ZEO programming guide that's pack
[Jeremy Hylton]
>> It's mentioned in the documentation -- see section 3.4 ZEO programming
>> notes -- and it's been discussed on this list many, many times.
[Chris Withers]
> Where are these notes?
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/FrontPage/guide/index.html
Then click on section "3.4 ZEO Prog
...
[Chris Withers]
>> I'd really prefer not to do that unless absolutely necessary:
>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-June/007554.html
[Jeremy Hylton]
> It sounds like the answer here it so avoid fork, rather than asyncore.
Good advice in general to avoid both <0.5 wink>.
Still,
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
If you don't run an asyncore mainloop, you'll be responsible for
manually sync-ing all the storages/connections that asyncore would
handle automatically.
Tim guessed wrong ;-)
Apart from the odd .sych() call on the various connections, what other
housekeeping does this asynco
[Gfeller Martin]
> We're using ZOPE 2.7.3 with its default Python, ZEO, and ZODB versions
> under Windows 2000 Server SP3. This is a 2xXeon machine, but Python is
> bound to a single CPU.
So that's ZODB 3.2.4. I don't believe any _relevant_ ZODB bugs were fixed
since then (ZODB 3.2.7 will be curr
Below is a self-contained program that reproduces both symptoms you
described, although I had to use 3 threads to make them frequent. Typical
output:
filling 1 ... 100 200 300 400 500 600 ...
... 9600 9700 9800 9900 1
iteration 0
Exception in thread Thread-3:Traceback (most
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote at 2005-3-30 08:39 -0500:
>
>>...
>>[Dieter Maurer]
>>
>>>The last packing bug was some time in the past. With current Zope
>>>versions, there is no known packing bug.
>>
>>It's not that packing introduces new problems, it's that packing isn't an
>>error rec
17 matches
Mail list logo
