>From my experience of hosting waveinabox.net demo server - current implementation is not scalable at all. Even 6-7 active users can cause it to work very slow on Amazon EC2 c1.medium instance. I guess more powerful machine can help but that won't scale. The greatest bottlenecks are the persistence and wave search implementations. AFAIK the current persistence implementation requires loading all the waves on server startup. The current search implementation is very ineffective as it is looping over all the waves instead of using indexed approach. As Bruno (STenyaK) mentioned - WIAB is just a reference implementation and there are no planning at the moment to make it scalable. However, there's nothing that can prevent from someone to submit a patch to handle these issues, so who knows... :)
2011/5/5 STenyaK <[email protected]> > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 17:47, Ryan Lester <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dude, sick, thanks a lot! That's a great writeup there. Are there any > > similar ones? It's been hard to find really comprehensive information on > > Wave deployment and development. > > > > Not as far as I know. But there are bits and bytes of information scattered > all over the net. I suggest you follow this mailing list, the source code > repository RSS feed, and this wave: > https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+r4MXHzVHC > > > > Is there any more progress which needs to be done on persistence, or is > the > > current solution permanent and scalable? > > > > Also, in your crash course, you mention that Wave is still at an alpha > > stage; is Wave at all appropriate yet for use in a production > environment, > > and if not, at what point is it projected to be? > > > > Wave In A Box can be considered simply a reference implementation. Its > current purpose is not to provide a scalable, production-ready package > (AFAIK). If it happens to be, then it's just a coincidence, and you should > not rely on that :-). At the moment, there are no deadlines defined for > that > either, although there was a discussion about deciding some set of goals > for > a near release. > > There was work on persistence based on mongoDB, and now work has shifted > towards filesystem-based persistence. I think that both work quite > reliably, > but db or fs schemas may change, and so it's possible that waves can be > lost > in the future... or maybe not :-) > > There's still work to do before it can be used by "the public", but it's > pretty easy to tinker with it in its current state if you accept that it's > still missing many features and that you may find bugs. > > > -- > Saludos, > Bruno González > > _______________________________________________ > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > http://www.stenyak.com >
