On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > Vincent Massol wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering today if we could provide a production quality XE >> packaging. >> >> Here's what would be my combo: >> >> * Jetty 6 or 7 >> >> * Latest Derby (aka JavaDB - which is included in JDK 1.6 BTW) in >> embedded mode >> See >> http://developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/j1sessn.jsp?sessn=TS-45170&yr=2007&track=3 >> for performance stats >> >> * Java Service Wrapper >> See http://wrapper.tanukisoftware.org/doc/english/integrate.html >> The nice thing with the wrapper is that it can also monitor the JVM >> and restart it if hung or not responding, in addition to restarting >> the service when the machine is rebooted of course. >> >> I'm confident that we could offer a base packaging that would work >> well for relatively large usages of XE and that is still small and >> all- >> preconfigured. >> >> Basically I think we could replace our current combo of Jetty 5.x + >> HSQLDB with this new combo and still get the best of both worlds: >> * simple packaging >> * production level quality >> >> Whereas our current standalone packaging is not production ready and >> is just for getting started with XWiki. >> >> WDYT? >> > > For jetty we should use pom dependencies, and not binaries in our svn. > We could either use jetty-assembly, which is a bit too large, but > includes everything, or we could compose our own Jetty (which is > pretty > modular) from dependencies like jetty-start and jetty (the core), as > we > don't need support for JSP, cometd, servlet annotations, jmx and > others. > > 7.0 is in "prerelease" stage, is that something stable? 6.x seems to > continue making releases in parallel with 7.0, and they don't seem > to be > around minor fixes. As far as I've seen, the major feature of 7.0 is > support for the upcoming servlets 3.0 (asynchronous transfers, which > means better support for AJAX), and a better organization of the > source > tree (more maven conventional). > > > For switching to Derby, I'm not convinced.
I'm very positive for Derby (even though I haven't used it myself a lot). It has made lots of progress in the past few years and it's production ready, which is definitely NOT the case for HSQLDB. Performances are very similar to MySQL and other DBs (see link I gave). It supports Catalogs/Schema (AFAIK) so that it will even work with multiwiki (which isn't the case for HSQLDB). DB4O has always been something at the level of research for me but then I haven't checked it out for the past 4 years so it's likely it has evolved. But right now Derby makes more sense for us. I'm not sure at all (I would even say no) that Artem should work on this since I haven't heard any request from XWiki users/customers to use DB4O and I would prefer that Artem works on some feature that are more requested by our users when he's done with JCR/QueryManager. I don't have the slightest doubt that Derby is better than HSQLDB for this use case. Now we could keep our current packaging and just add this new one but I think we might just not have enough manpower to maintain both so I would keep the HSQLDB one but not make it the default so that what we release would be Derby+Jetty+ServiceWrapper. That said all this is hypothetical for now since I want to finish the new rendering before moving to something else so I won't be working on this anytime soon. Of course if someone else is interested please go ahead. Thanks -Vincent > I don't know if you know > about PolePosition, a database benchmarking project. Some older > results > (I can't seem to find product versions on that site, or a date, but > the > HTML pages were modified a year ago) shows that HSQL (without > Hibernate) > is a clear winner, although it manages to do that because it keeps > most > of the data in memory, so data might be lost if the server is not > cleanly shutdown. Here's the page: > http://polepos.sourceforge.net/results/html/index.html > > Some things to notice: > - Hibernate adds serious overhead. > - When using hibernate, HSQL is faster than MySQL. > - A very good storage mechanism would be DB4O, which is also in-java, > and which can work directly with objects (an object oriented > database). > Converting from objects to tables and back is inefficient, and > communicating over JDBC adds even more overhead, while storing objects > directly is much faster. Also, complex/deep queries are the fastest in > this DB (see Barcelona/query, where DB4O is between 67 and 2500 (!) > times faster than HSQL+Hibernate, and up to 47000 times faster than > Derby *without* Hibernate). Artem, do you think you could try to > implement direct DB4O storage after you finish improving storage > refactoring and the query manager? > - At least in the versions used when this test was made, Derby (JavaDB > as it is called here) is among the slowest in most tests. > > Could someone download PolePosition and run it on recent versions of > Derby and HSQLD, with Hibernate in front of them, to get some recent > comparison data? _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
