Sorry to bring up this old thread. I decided to cache my object, because apparently it took additional 2s for initializing Accumulo stuff (besides connection to 2 datacenters, it creates writer/scanner for few tables). I do have different but somewhat related question here.
My service is running on Jetty, and there are several instances running in the cluster. Still, when there are many requests coming, 1 Jetty service instance will need to handle many requests, and since I cache the object, all of them will share the same Accumulo connector and writers (they don't share scanners, because I read somewhere it said that's not recommended). Will this approach of sharing Accumulo connector cause bottleneck, hence lower the throughput? Thanks, Z -- View this message in context: http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/cached-connector-tp16202p17254.html Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
