Hi, In my company some users are reporting the same issue: they prefer to use direct repository access instead of our internal Archiva because of performance drop.
I plan to use an external DB instead of embedded Derby to see if it improves performances, but I'm very interested to know if there is something else I can do. Regards, Julien ________________________________ De : Sergey Nikitin <[email protected]> À : [email protected] Envoyé le : Mardi, 21 Juillet 2009, 17h55mn 49s Objet : Archiva performance question Hi, I've started with Archiva evaluation and noticed that build time for project is increased by ~40-50% in case Archiva is used instead of simple remote repositories specification. I am building my test project on "machine A", Archiva is installed on "machine B". Both machines are in a very fast network. Typical maven behaviour is: "Downloading: ..." hang for 2-3 seconds "... downloaded" File size don't matter that much - POM file and 6Mb jar got almost same download time from Archiva. Internet connection is very fast for both machines. Are there some things to take a look on? Or it is inevitable performance drop due to all the things Archiva does behind the curtain? Sergey -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Archiva-performance-question-tp24590470p24590470.html Sent from the archiva-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
