Chris Withers wrote:
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> > - Policies to control whether multiple revisions are stored
> > or whether revisions are removed by packing on a object-by-object
> > or transaction-by-transaction basis.
>
> > You could keep significant historical revisions for im
Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> - Policies to control whether multiple revisions are stored
> or whether revisions are removed by packing on a object-by-object
> or transaction-by-transaction basis.
> You could keep significant historical revisions for important objects, such
> as Wiki p
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:27:00AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Lalo Martins wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, I said "inefficient", not "slow".
>
> I think you really mean "scalable".
No, I meant "inefficient", a purposely vague term ;-) yes, I
meant to imply it isn't scalable, but not only that, and as I
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:10:15AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Lalo Martins wrote:
> >
> > Please help stamp out Data.fs! :-)
>
> I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
> initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
> transactional mode require
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>
> At 08:10 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> >I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
> >initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
>
> >transactional mode requires a significant andminstration commitment.
>
At 08:10 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
>initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
>transactional mode requires a significant andminstration commitment.
>Log files need to be purged. Backup and
Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > > Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
> > > FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
> >
> > Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
> > than File
Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
> half of silence. What's the status?
>From our perspective, it's what it was then. We built it for
a customer who later decided they didn't want it. I'm
glad to hear you found it useful.
> What about the o
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 04:28:26PM +, Ty Sarna wrote:
> Lalo Martins wrote:
> >
> > What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
> > dead for an year.
>
> It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords!
>
> Seriously, AFAIK it still works, and it's mainly just stalled wai
l try to convince them to write a report to the list.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lalo Martins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] OracleStorage, and possibly others
Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
> dead for an year.
It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords!
Seriously, AFAIK it still works, and it's mainly just stalled waiting
for some interest. It could stand to be updated to BerkeleyDB 3, but
It sounds like you've done more comprehensive speed testing than we have.
Can you share some numbers?
- Original Message -
From: "Lalo Martins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev]
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
> > FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
>
> Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
> than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow
> Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
> FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow too but the slowness is somewhat
negated by caching.
__
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] OracleStorage, and possibly others
> Lalo Martins wrote:
> >
> > Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
> > half of silence. What's the
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:01:15PM -0800, Ender wrote:
> Lalo Martins wrote:
> >
> > Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
> > half of silence. What's the status?
> >
> > What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
> > dead for an year, and I heard p
Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
> half of silence. What's the status?
>
> What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
> dead for an year, and I heard pretty nasty words about
> InterbaseStorage. What about someone who wa
Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
half of silence. What's the status?
What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
dead for an year, and I heard pretty nasty words about
InterbaseStorage. What about someone who wanted to try to port
OracleStorage t
18 matches
Mail list logo
