More opinions here ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > +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 <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Martin, >>> >>> Some feedback you might find useful about this. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >>> 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 >>> >>> >
