Hello all,
in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and passivation to keep the
amount of memory being used for the index under control; I'm using
LIRS but experienced the same issue with all other strategies.
As you can see from the foll
On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:13, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hello all,
> in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
> batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and passivation to keep the
> amount of memory being used for the index under control; I'm using
> LIRS but experienced the same is
2011/6/7 Mircea Markus :
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:13, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
> batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and passivation to keep the
> amount of memory being used for the index under control; I'm using
> LIR
So, I removed all locking logic from EvictionManagerImpl, all my
issues are solved and all of core tests look like no worse than usual.
I'm still hoping to understand if there was an important reason to
lock, or I will send a pull request ;)
Sanne
2011/6/7 Sanne Grinovero :
> 2011/6/7 Mircea Mark
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:13, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
>> batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and passivation to keep the
>> amount of memory being used for the inde
On 8 Jun 2011, at 11:44, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:13, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> in this scenario we have the Infinispan Lucene Directory using
>>> batching (DummyTransaction), eviction and pass
I was mentioning passivation was enabled as debugging I saw it was
going to invoke to the passivator,
but I just realized that passivation was actually disabled in my configuration.
So one thing I'm solving now, is that we don't need to lock if the
passivator is disabled, as we're not going to do a
On 8 Jun 2011, at 16:24, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> I was mentioning passivation was enabled as debugging I saw it was
> going to invoke to the passivator,
> but I just realized that passivation was actually disabled in my
> configuration.
> So one thing I'm solving now, is that we don't need to l
2011/6/8 Manik Surtani :
>
> On 8 Jun 2011, at 16:24, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> I was mentioning passivation was enabled as debugging I saw it was
>> going to invoke to the passivator,
>> but I just realized that passivation was actually disabled in my
>> configuration.
>> So one thing I'm solvi
On 11-06-08 12:10 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Yes, we're on the same channel now. That's exactly what I meant
> yesterday on IRC when mentioning the BoundedCHM, and what I meant
> above with "we should acquire it before it's actually evicted".
> But this issue is getting complex, I've split it in
10 matches
Mail list logo
