> Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > Bent Andre Solheim wrote: > [...] > >> But back to my original question; do you have any opinion on how > >> stable Xindice is? Which release is the most stable? Can you > >> recommend it in a production environment? > > > > I don't have answer on this, as I have not used 1.0 > version. I'm using > > 1.1 CVS lightly, don't have issues with it, but I don't have your > > requirements also. I'd recommend you to test current CVS as > it will be > > candidate for the next beta (1.1b2), and, eventually, 1.1 > final release. > > A note on Xindice 1.0, perhaps only anecdotal, but for what > it's worth: > > I can't speak for performance, since that's not an issue for > my application, but I've been successfully using Xindice 1.0 > since it was released, and I've never had any data corruption > problems. It seems pretty stable, stable enough that I'm not > considering 1.1 until *it* has been around awhile, *and* I > get some time to actually implement it.
1.0 worked great for me aswell, but when I put it in an actual production environment - and as you say testing under system load on planned hardware - I encountered problems. The problems occured when not "treating" the database well; volently closing connections during heavy queries and ungently shutting the database down. It is a sad thing, but such situations might occur in my system, so my database must deal with it some way. I'm not saying that the database should do miracles, but some sort of error fixing must exist in cases the database encounters unexpected behavior. I'm going to keep testing the 1.1b2dev, and will hopefully be able to contribute something to this project... Thank you for your answer! Regards Bent
