[jboss-user] [JBossCache] - Re: Better way to use multiple caches?

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

What you could also do is multiplex over a single JGroups channel.  This way 
200 caches share a single network socket for comms.

Although I doubt the JGroups multiplexer has been stressed with 200 caches!  ;)

See: 
http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossCacheMultiplexer

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046179#4046179

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4046179
___
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user

[jboss-user] [JBossCache] - Re: Better way to use multiple caches?

[genman]

Likely, nobody including the devs have tested 200 separate cache instances 
versus a cache with 200 regions.

Given that there are limitations on what you can do within a region, 
specifically you can't configure a per-region cache loader yet, you would need 
separate cache instances.

I can't see anything wrong with 200 cache instances, just potential headaches 
with dealing with configuration. You do lose a bit of efficiency, in terms of 
memory.

What might be a good compromise would be to create about 10 different "flavors" 
of caches and share these amongst the 200 applications.


View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4045338#4045338

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4045338
___
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user