Concurrency, WebDAV vs. client API, topology, versions, etc.

[Mirko Froehlich <mf...@digitalchocolate.com>]

Hi,

I am planning to use Slide on my web project, and I could use some
advice. :)

We will initially use Slide as a repository for application data, as
opposed to a web content management system. The application data will be
stored on a per-user basis, and we are expecting several hundred users
to concurrently read from and write to the repository with hopefully
fast response times.

My initial testing with Slide using the WebDAV client API looks pretty
promising, and I am very impressed with the feature set. However, I have
not had a chance to do any concurrency testing. Does anybody have any
experience with similar Slide deployments?

Would you recommend using the WebDAV or the Slide API? Browsing through
the mailing list, it seems like people are generally in favor of the
WebDAV API, and I would love to be able to use it. But I am not sure if
the overhead will cause problems to meet our concurrency requirements.
Do you feel that the native Slide API might be more appropriate for this
scenario? How would I go about deploying the Slide API? Would I need to
run the Slide web app on the same Tomcat server as my web app? Or could
Slide still run on a remote server?

What are your experiences with clustering Slide? I am planning on using
the J2EE store and pointing it to our existing MySQL database. I am
planning on starting with a single Slide server and adding additional
nodes if necessary, all of which would point to the same MySQL database,
as per the clustering instructions.

Which version of Slide would you recommend using? We are planning on
deploying the system to production in about two months. I did my initial
testing on 2.1b2, but I am not sure if this is production ready yet.
Should I go with 2.0? Which significant functionality is missing in 2.0?
As far as I know, clustering is only supported in 2.1. Anything else?

Any other advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

-Mirko

Re: Concurrency, WebDAV vs. client API, topology, versions, etc.

[mf...@digitalchocolate.com]

> In Slide 2.0 locking for concurrency was done exclusively in the
> physical store, which in your scenario would be MySQL. This used to
> frequently cause a number of deadlocks. In 2.1 there is additional
> locking in the WebDAV layer, that prevents deadlocks. However,
> sometimes it is too restrictive which has been relaxed in what
> eventually will be 2.2

Do you feel that the WebDAV API would be appropriate for my use case (up
to several hundred concurrent users reading from and writing to the
repository on a remote server)?

I've been meaning to do some basic concurrency testing using JMeter to
simulate our requirements. When I get around ti running the tests, I'll
post my results to this list.

> 2.1 is more mature concerning MySQL support, specifically MySQL 4.1.
> It also supports transactions controlled by WebDAV, plus many fixes. I
> might repeat myself, but there are many people saying that even now
> 2.1 is more mature than 2.0.

That's very encouraging. I'll continue to use 2.1 for my tests and plan on
using it in production. What is the estimated release date for 2.1 at this
point? Do you plan on having another beta release first? I didn't find any
information on this on the roadmap.

-Mirko


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: slide-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: slide-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Concurrency, WebDAV vs. client API, topology, versions, etc.

[Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:14:03 -0800, Mirko Froehlich
<mf...@digitalchocolate.com> wrote:
> My initial testing with Slide using the WebDAV client API looks pretty
> promising, and I am very impressed with the feature set. However, I have
> not had a chance to do any concurrency testing. Does anybody have any
> experience with similar Slide deployments?

In Slide 2.0 locking for concurrency was done exclusively in the
physical store, which in your scenario would be MySQL. This used to
frequently cause a number of deadlocks. In 2.1 there is additional
locking in the WebDAV layer, that prevents deadlocks. However,
sometimes it is too restrictive which has been relaxed in what
eventually will be 2.2
 
> Which version of Slide would you recommend using? We are planning on
> deploying the system to production in about two months. I did my initial
> testing on 2.1b2, but I am not sure if this is production ready yet.
> Should I go with 2.0? Which significant functionality is missing in 2.0?
> As far as I know, clustering is only supported in 2.1. Anything else?

2.1 is more mature concerning MySQL support, specifically MySQL 4.1.
It also supports transactions controlled by WebDAV, plus many fixes. I
might repeat myself, but there are many people saying that even now
2.1 is more mature than 2.0.

Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: slide-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: slide-user-help@jakarta.apache.org