Thank for you reply. I used the memcache in other projects before, the performance seems good. Facebook did some enhancement on it. http://github.com/blog/267-facebook-s-memcached-on-github. You are right, we have to serialize/deserialize objects. But that's the price we have to pay for the clustering, is it?
In current clustering, one operation (for example, modify a property) will block entire clustering. It's terrible for us. we want to change the cluster-wide lock to item-wide, based on distributed lock with memcached. Another thought is to disable clustering/journal configuration. All cluster nodes use same distributed cache, DB and NFS. Since no local cache again, we only need to use JMS (activemq) to notify Local Search Index udpating. I noticed "Native Clustering" was on the Jackrabbit Roadmap - 3.0. What's the schedule for 3.0? Thomas Müller-2 wrote: > > Hi, > > Do you have experience with memcached for Java? > http://www.thimbleware.com/projects/jmemcached > From what I read it is a client-server solution, you would have to > serialize > / deserialize objects, which would slow down things a lot (compared to > having the cache in the Java heap memory). > > Regards, > Thomas > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM, defeng <defeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am using Jackrabbit 1.4.4 clustering. DB for persistent manager, and >> NFS >> for datastore. Everything works well, but since the Jackrabbit uses a >> Cluster-wide lock, many times, other JCR clients need to wait for a long >> time to acquire the Global lock. >> >> To solve this issue, I want to use a distributed cache(memcached) in >> SharedISM. To disable cache in SessionISM and LocalISM (I did not use XA >> ). >> So there is no necessary to sync any data in cache. In addition, I donot >> need to register Namespace or Nodetype at runtime. The only thing is to >> sync >> local search index in the Looping of ClusterNode. (I did not use >> AccessManager in Jackrabbit) >> >> When updating an item, a distributed lock is acquired. It is used to >> ensure >> the data consistence between persisten manager and distributed cache >> (2-phase commit). >> >> Is the proposal feasible? Any comment is highly appreciated! >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-w--distributed-cache-tp22044598p22044598.html >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-w--distributed-cache-tp22044598p22059652.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
