Hi Dan,
Try having zero portlets on the default page, and see if it makes a
difference...
Then start adding your portlets in and see where the bottleneck starts.
Dan Moore wrote:
Hi folks,
I have an application I'm building on top of Jetspeed 1.5--I just
grabbed the WAR from portals.apache.org.
I think it has nothing to do with the portlets since the only changes
he (Dan) made was the number of users.
I suggest to do some profiling (both IBM and Oracle stuff can help )
to the jetspped instance to see what is going on.
I used to work on J1 last year and I did found some scalability issues
Youssef Mohammed wrote:
I think it has nothing to do with the portlets since the only changes
he (Dan) made was the number of users.
I suggest to do some profiling (both IBM and Oracle stuff can help )
to the jetspped instance to see what is going on.
I used to work on J1 last year and I did found
David Sean Taylor wrote:
Youssef Mohammed wrote:
I think it has nothing to do with the portlets since the only changes
he (Dan) made was the number of users.
I suggest to do some profiling (both IBM and Oracle stuff can help )
to the jetspped instance to see what is going on.
I used to work on J1 l
Hi:
I don't know about J1 scalability issues, but HSQL does. Could the
DB (in a slow computer and a JVM not optimized for memory)
be the problem in this case?
"HyperSonic (HSQLDB): (...) Hypersonic was originally designed as
an in-memory database; as a result, operations performed on
tables
I don't mind at all :)
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:00:00 -0800, David Sean Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Youssef Mohammed wrote:
> > I think it has nothing to do with the portlets since the only changes
> > he (Dan) made was the number of users.
> > I suggest to do some profiling (both IBM and
Well folks, we found the issue with the 100,000 users problem.
I used p6spy to grab all the SQL statements going to the database, and
we saw this:
1099788107943|13|1|statement||SELECT TURBINE_USER.USER_ID,
TURBINE_USER.LOGIN_NA
ME, TURBINE_USER.PASSWORD_VALUE, TURBINE_USER.FIRST_NAME,
TURBINE_U
Glad that u solved your problem. I also wonder if anyone has
explanation of what happened to Dan and other solution without turning
the SecuirtyAccessControl off.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:58:46 -0800 (PST), Dan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well folks, we found the issue with the 100,000 users
I can verify that I saw this behavior on PostgreSQL back on 1.4, so I
suspect it's not DB dependant. I use a custom authentication class and do
my own caching, so never really pursued it. (And, in fact, forgot about it
until this message jogged my memory.)
-- Michael
On 11/17/04 8:58 AM, "Dan
