+1
I think this is the right direction. In the long term we should revisit
some decisions/relicts of storing pages in Wicket.
Sven
On 04/04/2014 03:19 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Hi Guillaume,
We have also disabled the second level cache for our main application for
the time being.
Maybe we should set 0 as the default cache size for 6.15.0 and explain this
in the announcement + a blog + some tweets ?
If an application wants to use the second level cache then it should enable
it explicitly.
What other Wicket devs/users think ?
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Guillaume Smet <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Martin,
Some feedback you might find useful about this.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>
wrote:
A workaround to avoid the slowness caused by this is to set 0 or negative
value to org.apache.wicket.settings.StoreSettings#setInmemoryCacheSize
We have a quite big application which was slow under load without us
being able to find the culprit.
I set the InmemoryCacheSize to 0 yesterday and the application is now
much more reactive.
We use a lot the disk data store as we have back links nearly
everywhere and clicking back isn't slower than before. Probably
because we couldn't set the cache too high due to memory issues and we
probably have too many users to have an effective inmemorycache with
the size we configured.
Might be useful to spread the word about it.
Thanks for your post on this subject.
--
Guillaume
