Heh :)
I stand corrected.
Lior
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4077564#4077564
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4077564
___
jboss-user mailing list
mvlior wrote : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : anonymous wrote :
| | | After changing to pessimistic locking, our test results have
dramatically improved. It turns out to be a known issue in 1.2.4 SP1.
| | |
| | What is a known issue? Optimistic locking did not officially exist
Out of curiosity, is Optimistic locking still an issue with POJOCache in 2.0
Habanero?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4073501#4073501
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4073501
Which version of JBOSS Cache was Lior using?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4073503#4073503
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4073503
___
jboss-user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : anonymous wrote :
| | After changing to pessimistic locking, our test results have
dramatically improved. It turns out to be a known issue in 1.2.4 SP1.
| |
| What is a known issue? Optimistic locking did not officially exist till
1.3.0. :-)
|
|
:)
BruceSpringfield wrote : Out of curiosity, is Optimistic locking still an
issue with POJOCache in 2.0 Habanero?
No this is actually a good combination.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4073632#4073632
Reply to the post :
anonymous wrote :
| After changing to pessimistic locking, our test results have dramatically
improved. It turns out to be a known issue in 1.2.4 SP1.
|
What is a known issue? Optimistic locking did not exist till 1.3.0.
View the original post :
anonymous wrote : I'd recommend to try it with pessimistic locking. Not sure
how much of the performance impact it will have but I think it does without
further tuning.
After changing to pessimistic locking, our test results have dramatically
improved. It turns out to be a known issue in 1.2.4
Oh... I must have checked in the wrong place then.
I understand that with optimistic locking, these are the results to expect,
please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4016248#4016248
Reply to the post :
Hi,
No, we did not try the pessimistic locking in the test.
Do the above test results seem normal to you, or is there something wrong ?
BTW, at first it was planned to run the wiki test, but it seems to have been
removed from the trunk (last time I checked).
Thank you.
View the original
You need to check out Branch_JBossCache_1_4_0 and look under tests/scripts. It
is there since I just check. :-)
I'd recommend to try it with pessimistic locking. Not sure how much of the
performance impact it will have but I think it does without further tuning.
View the original post :
PojoCache isn't optimized for attaching strings using putObject(). I'm not an
official developer, but I know PojoCache is designed for lightweight
replication and is not optimized for attachment speed.
I know PojoCache isn't trying to be the fastest for this sort of use case.
There is the
I have noticed that you used optimistic locking, if I am reading it correctly.
Have you tried the pessimistic one where the wiki results were based?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4015522#4015522
Reply to the post :
We were hoping for an official response for such a question.
Perhaps a light version of the above would help :)
How fast can putObject(Key..., Value...) be called on a local cache ?
The keys/values are different Strings every time.
Thanks in advance,
Lior Neuman
RD Team
MailVision LTD
View
Hi,
Thanks for replying; please see inline.
anonymous wrote : There are many differences in what you tested and the wiki
page.
|
| Mainly, they were testing field updates on attached objects across a
cluster. And you are just testing the speed of attaching objects.
|
Yes, you are
There are many differences in what you tested and the wiki page.
Mainly, they were testing field updates on attached objects across a cluster.
And you are just testing the speed of attaching objects.
If your objects are simple strings, just use the plain TreeCache.
View the original post :
16 matches
Mail list logo
