On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Claudiu Saftoiu <csaft...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > One potential thing is this: after a zeopack the index database .fs file is > about 400 megabytes, so I figure a cache of 3000 megabytes should more than > cover it. Before a zeopack, though - I do one every 3 hours - the file grows > to 7.6 gigabytes.
In scanning over this thread while writing my last message, I noticed this. This is a ridiculous amount of churn. There is likely something seriously out of whack with your application. Every application is different, but we typically see *weekly* packs reduce database size by at most 50%. > Shouldn't the relevant objects - the entire set of latest > versions of the objects - be the ones in the cache, thus it doesn't matter > that the .fs file is 7.6gb as the actual used bits of it are only 400mb or > so? Every object update invalidates cached versions of the obejct in all caches except the writer's. (Even the writer's cached value is invalidated of conflict-resolution was performed.) > Another question is, does zeopacking destroy the cache? No, but lots of writing does. > If so then that > would make sense. I'll have to preload upon every zeopack. If it's not that, > then I'm not sure what it could be. I think you have some basic application design problem(s). Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
