On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:31:05PM +0200, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200,
Martijn Pieters m...@zopatista.com wrote :
Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
between RelStorage and NEO?
I believe the main difference compared to all
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:31:05PM +0200, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200,
Martijn Pieters m...@zopatista.com wrote :
Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Vincent Pelletier vinc...@nexedi.com wrote:
...
I forgot in the original mail to mention that NEO does all conflict
resolutions on client side rather than server side. The same happens in
relStorage, but this is different from ZEO.
That's good. I'd like to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:37:37 +0200,
Vincent Pelletier vinc...@nexedi.com wrote :
Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL databases
To make things maybe a bit clearer, from the feedback I get:
You can forget about SQL presence. NEO usage of SQL is as a relational
as a handful of
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier vinc...@nexedi.com wrote:
NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but
with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be
distributed over several machines, and by removing database-level
locking),
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200,
Martijn Pieters m...@zopatista.com wrote :
Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
between RelStorage and NEO?
I believe the main difference compared to all other ZODB Storage
implementation is the finer-grained locking scheme: in
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier vinc...@nexedi.com wrote:
Hi,
We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release.
NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but
with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be
distributed over several
