You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Simon Gash <Si...@gossinteractive.com> on 2005/05/20 12:41:51 UTC
Start Up Time
Anyone know why JackRabbit is taking longer to start the more content I
add. I always presumed that it only loads items from the PM as required,
or am I missing something...
Thanks
Simon
Come visit us at:
Internet World 2005. June 14 - 16, Earls Court, Stand # A60
Government Computing Expo. June 21 & 22, Earls Court, Stand # 804
SOCITM Annual Event. October 16 - 18 Brighton Hotel, Stand # 28
GOSS - Ranked 4th in the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 Awards 2004 and 88th in the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 EMEA.
This email contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email.
Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free, as information may be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete or contain viruses. This email and any files attached to it have been checked with virus detection software before transmission. You should nonetheless carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. GOSS Interactive Ltd accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
RE: Start Up Time
Posted by Peter Morton <Pe...@gtnet.com>.
If the versioning initialisation performance is a known issue that requires
attention, has anyone had any thoughts on how to improve this?
I have noticed the poor performance when adding several thousand nodes to
version control and was wanting to come to a quick solution. At the moment
we are running the repository on NTFS (which I know does help things) but
after moving to linux and ext3 the performance didn't really improve so I am
assuming there is something needing to be greatly optimized in the code
above at the PM level.
I will be looking into this in more detail next week, but any pointers would
be welcome.
Thanks,
Peter.
--
Peter Morton
Graham Technology plc,
http://www.gtnet.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Strasser [mailto:tobias.strasser@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 May 2005 09:21
> To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org; david.nuescheler@day.com
> Subject: Re: Start Up Time
>
>
> you are correct, currently the versioning initializes the set of
> histories, but this will be optimized. afaik, the query index does
> scale very well with an increasing number of items. we could add some
> timing info for the startup.
>
> cheers, tobi
>
> On 5/27/05, David Nuescheler <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi simon,
> >
> > On 5/20/05, Simon Gash <Si...@gossinteractive.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone know why JackRabbit is taking longer to start the more
> content I
> > > add. I always presumed that it only loads items from the PM
> as required,
> > > or am I missing something...
> > i experienced the same thing, as far as i remember it was something
> > to do with versioning or the query index, but i am not sure anymore.
> >
> > i think you are right, there is no sensible justification for
> that behaviour
> > and should probably be categorized as an issue.
> >
> > regards,
> > david
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------< tobias.strasser@day.com >---
> Tobias Strasser, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel
> T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97
> -----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
>
________________________________________________________________________________
This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended
solely for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error
please remove it and inform us via telephone or email.
Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and attachments are free
from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept any responsibility
whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds.
The views represented within this mail are solely the view of the
author and do not reflect the views of Graham Technology as a whole.
________________________________________________________________________________
Graham Technology plc http://www.gtnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Start Up Time
Posted by Tobias Strasser <to...@gmail.com>.
you are correct, currently the versioning initializes the set of
histories, but this will be optimized. afaik, the query index does
scale very well with an increasing number of items. we could add some
timing info for the startup.
cheers, tobi
On 5/27/05, David Nuescheler <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi simon,
>
> On 5/20/05, Simon Gash <Si...@gossinteractive.com> wrote:
> > Anyone know why JackRabbit is taking longer to start the more content I
> > add. I always presumed that it only loads items from the PM as required,
> > or am I missing something...
> i experienced the same thing, as far as i remember it was something
> to do with versioning or the query index, but i am not sure anymore.
>
> i think you are right, there is no sensible justification for that behaviour
> and should probably be categorized as an issue.
>
> regards,
> david
>
--
------------------------------------------< tobias.strasser@day.com >---
Tobias Strasser, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel
T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97
-----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
Re: Start Up Time
Posted by David Nuescheler <da...@gmail.com>.
hi simon,
On 5/20/05, Simon Gash <Si...@gossinteractive.com> wrote:
> Anyone know why JackRabbit is taking longer to start the more content I
> add. I always presumed that it only loads items from the PM as required,
> or am I missing something...
i experienced the same thing, as far as i remember it was something
to do with versioning or the query index, but i am not sure anymore.
i think you are right, there is no sensible justification for that behaviour
and should probably be categorized as an issue.
regards,
david