Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:44 am, you wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 19:08, Richard Jones wrote:
> > Is there a viable non-versioned alternative to the filestorage approach?
> > My sessions database grows ridiculously quickly. I'm also fairly sure
> > it's causing problems when my site gets ~5 requests a second (yes, that
> > low)
> You could use temporarystorage on the ZEO server if you don't really
> need your session data to be persistent across ZEO server restarts.
> This is what Fernando appeared to do in the end.

Having sessions persist across ZEO restarts is a handy thing.

Also, I never figured how to configure a temp storage in a ZEO server. I 
started looking once, but either ran into a dead end or got distracted (or 
both ;)

> There are no well-maintained nonundoing storages that I know of other
> than temporarystorage.  Once upon a time, BerkeleyStorage minimal used
> to work, but its gone the way of the dinosaurs apparently.

And I distrust anything related to Berkely DB :)

> I think any sessioning setup that uses a ZEO-backed storage will be more
> conflict-prone than one that doesn't use ZEO, just because the
> transaction commit time is typically longer.  I'm not sure if this is
> the problem you mention.

Could be.

> Probably not hard.  You could write a "session data manager"
> implementation that used a relational database.  The interface for those
> things is in Products/Sessions/SessionInterfaces.py

Yeah, I remember poking around that code way back, and it seemed reasonable. 
Its interactions with transactions are the bits that scare me. Using a 
standard RDBMS connection would probably solve that though.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to