On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 13:55, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. Ideally (not sure if that's feasible) we'd push all caching > down below the unified persistence layer.
IMO that's exactly where a distributed cache belongs to. the current design already implements some aspects but lacks other important things. currently each cluster node has it's own bundlecache with invalidation triggered on external changes. but filling the cache is always done through shared storage. I think this can become a bottleneck when the number of cluster nodes is more than just a few. e.g. consider that each of the cluster nodes has event listener registered that are interested in current changes. this will cause a rush on the shared storage whenever a change is done. ideally the cluster nodes (or more specifically the micro-kernels) would share their cached items with other cluster nodes. shared storage is only accessed when none of the cluster nodes can provide the request version of an item. regards marcel
