Johan Compagner wrote: > and i am completely not suprised that ehcache was not performing better. > How could it do that?? Where should the gain come from? > The current impl really grows directly with the hardware you have. > ehcache need to be tweaked exactly > what your system can handle. What do you say then? 200 page? 2000 > pages? What does that cost? Although I don't know all details of wicket needs for caching yet but I'll try to explain my idea.
I think that storing every page on the disk is not good. With ehcache we can create a cache with limited in-memory size and unlimited on-disk size. Then we'll put every page in the cache, and when we'll access frequently used pages - they'll be got from memory, others will be read from the disk. That's where it can perform better - working with the file system only when it's really needed. And also there threading issues which are solved and tested in ehcache. Matej, can you share you ehcache impl? -- Andrew Klochkov ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
