do you use the SimpleDbPersistenceManager for berkleydb ? -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alexandru Popescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007 11:39 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: Persistence Manager in Production Environment
On 2/21/07, Stefan Guggisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i'd suggest, for now, using jackrabbit's default configuration, i.e. > DerbyPersistenceManager, since it's been extensively tested and since > it is pretty fast (considerably faster than the oracle pm). > > cheers > stefan > I am quite happy with BerkleyDB (indeed there was no need to share the storage). ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. _____________________________________ Alexandru Popescu, OSS Evangelist TestNG/Groovy/AspectJ/WebWork/more... Information Queue ~ www.InfoQ.com > On 2/21/07, KÖLL Claus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We are on the road to use jackrabbit in our production environment but i'm > > not sure > > which persistence manager we should use. > > > > I have made some tests with the j2c adapter in combination with the oracle > > db pm > > to get a atomar transaction through the pm. > > A reason for db is also the easy way to backup/restore the data. > > > > On the other hand is the filesystem, no atomar transaction but it is fast. > > we think we get about 1-2 Million documents in jackrabbit > > and then the backup is no more really possible on filesystem beacuse if i > > use objectpersistenmanager i get about > > 6-10 files per node on fs (6*2Million files effectivity). On crash to > > recover these files take really long :-) > > > > A good message is that day will offer there pm's, so the node propertys > > will no more be stored in seperate files .. > > > > I hope i get some experience ... > > thanks > > claus > > >
