On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
On 12/10/2010 17:56, Jim Fulton wrote:
Currently the only configuration docs are in the .xml Alan provided a
link to.
The best size will depend on the app.
Is there a downside to too big, provided there's plenty
On 14/10/2010 17:09, Jim Fulton wrote:
What does this error message imply?
That two processes were trying to access the cache.
The above did not, however, occur if I stopped and then started the app
server...
Race condition?
Hopefully, you screwed up somehow and started the process while
On 14/10/2010 17:13, Alan Runyan wrote:
I went for the following in the end:
...
cache-size 200Mb
client app
wait on
/zeoclient
mount-point /
cache-size 5
cache-size-bytes 500Mb
Any obvious issues with that?
No.
each zeoclient
I went for the following in the end:
...
cache-size 200Mb
client app
wait on
/zeoclient
mount-point /
cache-size 5
cache-size-bytes 500Mb
Any obvious issues with that?
No.
each zeoclient needs a name in your conf. required
so the .zec
On 12/10/2010 17:56, Jim Fulton wrote:
Currently the only configuration docs are in the .xml Alan provided a link
to.
The best size will depend on the app.
Is there a downside to too big, provided there's plenty of disk space
free on the app servers?
There are some docs in
Hi All,
I'm wondering if some of my issues might be alleviated by persistent
client caches.
Now, I have the impression that these were unreliable and buggy and had
been so for some time.
Is this still the case? If not, where are the docs on how to configure
them nowadays?
cheers,
Chris
--
I'm wondering if some of my issues might be alleviated by persistent
client caches.
anything is possible.
Now, I have the impression that these were unreliable and buggy and had
been so for some time.
they appear to be more stable now. we use them on several customer's
in very specific
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Hi All,
I'm wondering if some of my issues might be alleviated by persistent
client caches.
Now, I have the impression that these were unreliable and buggy and had
been so for some time.
They became much better
On 12/10/2010 17:11, Jim Fulton wrote:
Now, I have the impression that these were unreliable and buggy and had
been so for some time.
They became much better in later 3.8 releases and still much better lately.
We've been using them in production for quite a while.
Any docs on recommended
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
On 12/10/2010 17:11, Jim Fulton wrote:
Now, I have the impression that these were unreliable and buggy and had
been so for some time.
They became much better in later 3.8 releases and still much better
lately.
10 matches
Mail list logo
