Re: [xwiki-users] users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 43
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:34:42 -0700 From: Adriano Lopes <[email protected]> Subject: [xwiki-users] Less resource-intensive plataform for XWiki? To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
I have XWiki 1.1-milestone-2.3619 available in my business. I use it as a repository for engineering technical >information and legislation and as a Blog.
My XWiki installation is the default one with the jetty container. I use Vista x64 SP1.
The "xwiki_db.script" file is now over 3,5GB (mostly because I have many attachments) and I have set >JAVA_OPTS=-Xmx2512m to be able to load XWiki.
The process java.exe occupies 2,6GB of RAM memory. I have bought additional RAM reaching a total of 6GB to be >able to use the computer while XWiki is loaded.
XWiki as become an important part of my business and all my co-workers love to use it, so the information keeps >growing.
I will most certainly reach the maximum RAM (8GB) of my computer and will have to make large hardware >investments if I am to continue using XWiki.
Is there a less resource-intensive way for Xwiki to store attachments or a container more suitable for the way >I use XWiki?
Adriano, I had similar problems with the default installation. I changed my configuration to use Tomcat and MySQL, and the results have been great. The RAM footprint is much smaller now - Tomcat using 98MB of RAM and MySql using 38MB of RAM. Other benefits are: it loads much faster, it's been much more stable, and it was also very easy to switch over to the new configuration. Hope this helps! Regards, Len Wanger Important: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you hereby are notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies.
On Aug 27, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Len Wanger wrote:
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:34:42 -0700 From: Adriano Lopes <[email protected]> Subject: [xwiki-users] Less resource-intensive plataform for XWiki? To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
I have XWiki 1.1-milestone-2.3619 available in my business. I use it as a repository for engineering technical >information and legislation and as a Blog.
My XWiki installation is the default one with the jetty container. I use Vista x64 SP1.
The "xwiki_db.script" file is now over 3,5GB (mostly because I have many attachments) and I have set >JAVA_OPTS=-Xmx2512m to be able to load XWiki.
The process java.exe occupies 2,6GB of RAM memory. I have bought additional RAM reaching a total of 6GB to be >able to use the computer while XWiki is loaded.
XWiki as become an important part of my business and all my co- workers love to use it, so the information keeps >growing.
I will most certainly reach the maximum RAM (8GB) of my computer and will have to make large hardware >investments if I am to continue using XWiki.
Is there a less resource-intensive way for Xwiki to store attachments or a container more suitable for the way >I use XWiki?
You should definitely not use the standalone installation in production (I'm pretty sure this is mentioned in the installation guide and it's quite obvious since Hypersonic SQL is not meant to be used in production for large DBs). Jetty works perfectly well in production though but you might want to use a newer version than the one we bundle for now. Thanks -Vincent
Adriano,
I had similar problems with the default installation. I changed my configuration to use Tomcat and MySQL, and the results have been great. The RAM footprint is much smaller now - Tomcat using 98MB of RAM and MySql using 38MB of RAM. Other benefits are: it loads much faster, it's been much more stable, and it was also very easy to switch over to the new configuration.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Len Wanger
participants (2)
-
Len Wanger -
Vincent Massol