Hello, > Again, serialization and writing to filesystem are two > completely different things. > Are you *really* sure that the writing (which is done in > separate thread btw) is really the bottleneck? I have
No, I am not really sure. But, I suspect(ed...i am in doubt now :-) ) the writing mainly because it seems to be only happening on Windows machines. While profiling, I see a lot of cpu time in org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.SecondLevelCacheSessionStore$SecondLevel CachePageMap.put(Page) See http://people.apache.org/~ard/cpu-profile.html There I have 2 times org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.SecondLevelCacheSessionStore$SecondLevel CachePageMap.put(Page) One of 47% and one of 42%. But, as indicated, this very well might all just be the serialization part (I now also see some time spend in logging for undetached models, oooppsss). Perhaps I was to early with my conclusion, but still do not get why Linux machines do not seem the suffer from this behavior. Anyway, if it would be the serialization only, and not the writing, I would be seeing the (almost) same statistics for the Terracotta in memory page store, right? > profiled this a lot and the serialization takes > signifficantly more time than writing the stuff to disk. But > the serialization is necessary, plus the overhead is there > only until you run your application in clustered environment. The overhead of serializing is only there when running clustered? The 'page back' functionality also uses it, isn't, so I thought it wasn't only for clustered environments (and then specifically for clustering without sticky sessions, right?) -Ard > > -Matej > > > Regards Ard > > > >> Serialization takes a significant part of request processing, but > >> that is necessary. > >> > >> -Matej > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ard Schrijvers > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Hello everybody, > >> > > >> > Did anybody perhaps ever implement a memory version of the > >> > AbstractPageStore. Currently, I only see a DiskPageStore, which > >> > happens to be quite a large cpu bottleneck for Windows > users AFAICS. > >> > > >> > So, before starting to implement one, just wondering > >> whether somebody > >> > has experience on a memory page store version, > >> > > >> > Thx for any pointers, > >> > > >> > Regards Ard > >> > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.onehippo.com > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > Amsterdam - Hippo B.V. Oosteinde 11 1017 WT Amsterdam > >> +31(0)20-5224466 > >> > San Francisco - Hippo USA Inc. 101 H Street, suite Q Petaluma CA > >> > 94952-3329 +1 (707) 773-4646 > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
