On 10/11/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi James,
> Am wondering if you're hitting a slightly different issue though - of
> the RAM / gc impact of using the journal causing pauses versus the
> much simpler write to JDBC
Could be. The test cases run from pretty small to pretty large and they all
seem to have the same results. I'm doing the tests on my dev box but
hopefully we'll get a chance to do more on a box that matches our production
scenario a little better (remote sql server, dedicated box, lots of memory)
and I'll see what the numbers look like between them and get them back to
you.
> BTW it'd be interesting to see the performance if you tried kaha
> instead of JDBC, just to get an idea of relative speed
Will do as soon as we move to 4.1 (I assume it's only available in 4.1) and
get back to you with the results. That said, as soon as 4.1 goes live, we're
going to move to Shared JDBC Master / Slave which is why I was trying to get
an idea of what the performance of pure JDBC was like.
Yeah - its a very cool option :)
Thanks for the heads up - I was just nosy to find out kaha v JDBC with
SQLServer :)
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
