Hi Alex, So, one should also store binaries in the database? This would almost force us to use a high end database such as Oracle, wouldn't it?
A few days ago I asked a similar question and got an answer from Shaun Barriball, who kindly answered that he has been using a DB/FS setup, in cluster, for 2 years without any issues. I'd really like to have my binaries on NFS and metadata on DB, in cluster, if possible or unless you think it's better otherwise. Thanks! Juan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Klimetschek" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 8:16:37 AM GMT -03:00 Argentina Subject: Re: About Jackrabbit clustering On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:50 AM, skyleaf<[email protected]> wrote: > <PersistenceManager > class="org.apache.jackrabbit.core.persistence.bundle.BundleFsPersistenceManager"> > </PersistenceManager> > When I run Jackrabbit, there are three lines of log info: > > INFO cluster.ClusterNode: not started: namespace operation ignored. > INFO cluster.ClusterNode: not started: namespace operation ignored. > INFO cluster.ClusterNode: not started: namespace operation ignored. Not sure how these messages build up, but note that you need a persistence manager that allows for clustering. The BundleFsPersistenceManager is not one of them. You need a central database that allows concurrent access from the various nodes. See [1] for more info. Also note that you might need to change your workspace.xml files as well (or simply drop the workspaces directory if you start from scratch) [2]. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Clustering [2] http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jackrabbit-configuration.html Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek [email protected]
