On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:59:36AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: | | On May 31, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Sidnei da Silva wrote: | | >On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:49:49AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: | >| I've done this (at least with FileStorage) and it's | >| sllllllooooooooowwww. Might be OK for low-traffic sites, but better | >| to implement a custom session data container that stores stuff in | >| SQL. I have the beginnings of one of these if you want to see it. | > | >Slow for using sessions? Why didn't you use tempstorage then? | | I think I thought it wouldn't have mattered. The difference between | using sessions against a local filestorage and one on a ZEO server | was something like 20X.
So, since I couldn't believe the 20X figure, I wrote a very dumb test [1] that shows [2] tempstorage to be only slightly slower than filestorage (roughly 10%) and that adding zeo to the mix makes both of them about 4X slower, which would be pretty acceptable by my standards. I'm looking forward for testing tres' memcached stuff tomorrow. In the meantime, it would be great if someone can run the script on different boxes and platforms (I've ran it on Windows on a Intel Dual Core 3.0) to see if there's any difference. [1] http://awkly.org/files/zeo-bench/bench.py [2] http://awkly.org/files/zeo-bench/bench_results.txt -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems http://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
