12 Jun
2010
12 Jun
'10
6:32 a.m.
I have seen another threads, but I didn't noticed any good idea. I have
only seen JCR project in the sandbox.
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/JcrStore
I have no idea what is JCR. «JCR» sounds very different from
«filesystem». Installing and maintaining JCR is likely to be yet another
brainache I'd like to skip. Finally, «Translate XWQL to JCRSQL2» sounds
very different from «simple and reliable». «Storing 10Mb octet streams
in database» doesn't sound like being reliable, and indeed it caused
strange problems recently.
So my humble wish is to see xwikiattachment_content table replaced with
a mere filesystem storage. Other tables left intact. Maintaing
«Space/Document/Attachment» structure is not a requirement (althoung it
would be nice since I could share it in GreyLink DC++ this way).
--
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom
12 Jun
12 Jun
6:55 a.m.
Ivan Levashew wrote:
I have seen another threads, but I didn't noticed
any good idea. I have
only seen JCR project in the sandbox.
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/JcrStore
I have no idea what is JCR. «JCR» sounds very different from
«filesystem». Installing and maintaining JCR is likely to be yet another
brainache I'd like to skip. Finally, «Translate XWQL to JCRSQL2» sounds
very different from «simple and reliable».
JCR seems to be proposed as a
replacement for the database entirely.
I would have to see it's performance before I would want to advocate for the idea.
«Storing 10Mb octet streams
in database» doesn't sound like being reliable, and indeed it caused
strange problems recently.
On the one hand it definitely over-stresses the database
but on the other hand
it is very nice to be able to do a database dump, wipe the disk, load the dump
and be right back where you were before. Maybe a hybrid where content is stored
in the db and 'cached' on the hard disk but caches make debugging a huge pain.
Still something has to be done about the max_packet issue.
So my humble wish is to see xwikiattachment_content table replaced with
a mere filesystem storage. Other tables left intact. Maintaing
«Space/Document/Attachment» structure is not a requirement (althoung it
would be nice since I could share it in GreyLink DC++ this way).
7:19 a.m.
Caleb James DeLisle writes:
With regards to dumping, I'd like it to be done via FTP or WebDAV means. I
don't know whether current WebDAV implemetation is suitable for dumping.
Anyway, dumps maid that way are going to be more portable compared to e.
g. MySQL dumps. Also, MySQL dump isn't browsable with tools like FAR
Manager. XARs are portable and browsable.
--
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom
«Storing 10Mb octet streams
in database» doesn't sound like being reliable, and indeed it caused
strange problems recently.
On the one hand it definitely over-stresses the
database but on the other hand
it is very nice to be able to do a database dump, wipe the disk, load the dump
and be right back where you were before. Maybe a hybrid where content is stored
in the db and 'cached' on the hard disk but caches make debugging a huge pain.
Still something has to be done about the max_packet issue.
11:02 a.m.
I'm testing WebDAV now and getting lots of exceptions when
copying photos from PhotoAlbum.
There are entries like this one:
Caused by: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
Web server isn't stable in these moments.
javaw.exe consumes about 600Mb of memory. Although I can adjust it
to use 3Gb of memory, this seems to be a wrong way. Storing big
attachments in a database is a wrong way. Handling them in-memory is
a wrong way. They should be handled in another manner. Some kind of
event-based servlet streams attachments block by block without putting
any whole octet stream in memory (it seems that stroring attachments
in database implies this as a consequence).
No matter what I (and you) do, wrong way will constantly show its
wrongness and limitations.
X-Wiki is far from being perfect yet indeed it's outstanding. I don't
regret I have spent some time to get it working. I hope, current way
of handling attachments will be obsoleted soon.
--
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom
11:10 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:02, Ivan Levashew <I.Levashew(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
I'm testing WebDAV now and getting lots of
exceptions when
copying photos from PhotoAlbum.
There are entries like this one:
Caused by: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
Web server isn't stable in these moments.
javaw.exe consumes about 600Mb of memory. Although I can adjust it
to use 3Gb of memory, this seems to be a wrong way. Storing big
attachments in a database is a wrong way. Handling them in-memory is
a wrong way. They should be handled in another manner. Some kind of
event-based servlet streams attachments block by block without putting
any whole octet stream in memory (it seems that stroring attachments
in database implies this as a consequence).
No matter what I (and you) do, wrong way will constantly show its
wrongness and limitations.
X-Wiki is far from being perfect yet indeed it's outstanding. I don't
regret I have spent some time to get it working. I hope, current way
of handling attachments will be obsoleted soon.
+1, storing attachments in the DB is a pretty bad idea. Not to mention
that storing large objects in MySQL restrains from using InnoDB.
--
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
--
Je prête mes livres sur Bibale, http://www.bibale.com/bibale/-/user/hbs
11:21 a.m.
On Jun 12, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Actually we have a separate Attachment storage (there's an interface called
XWikiAttachmentStoreInterface) and it should be pretty easy to implement a file-based
implementation of it. I wonder why nobody has done it before....
Thanks
-Vincent
Ivan Levashew wrote:
This is not correct. JCR is simply a Java API and an SPI for implementers to plug any
storage. There are SPI implementations for filesystem, RDBMS, and more.
If you prefer it serves a similar purpose as Hibernate but in a standard way and more
generic since it supports any type of storage.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_repository_API_for_Java for example.
I have seen another threads, but I didn't
noticed any good idea. I have
only seen JCR project in the sandbox.
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/JcrStore
I have no idea what is JCR. «JCR» sounds very different from
«filesystem». Installing and maintaining JCR is likely to be yet another
brainache I'd like to skip. Finally, «Translate XWQL to JCRSQL2» sounds
very different from «simple and reliable».
JCR seems to be proposed as a
replacement for the database entirely. I would have to see it's performance before I
would want to advocate for the idea.
The only potential problem re performance is the mapping between the java objects and the
tables if you choose the RDBMS SPI. We'll need to compare the performance with our
current Hibernate solution indeed.
«Storing 10Mb
octet streams
in database» doesn't sound like being reliable, and indeed it caused
strange problems recently.
On the one hand it definitely over-stresses the
database but on the other hand
it is very nice to be able to do a database dump, wipe the disk, load the dump
and be right back where you were before. Maybe a hybrid where content is stored
in the db and 'cached' on the hard disk but caches make debugging a huge pain.
Still something has to be done about the max_packet issue.
>
> So my humble wish is to see xwikiattachment_content table replaced with
> a mere filesystem storage. Other tables left intact. Maintaing
> «Space/Document/Attachment» structure is not a requirement (althoung it
> would be nice since I could share it in GreyLink DC++ this way).
5264
days inactive
5264
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Ivan Levashew -
Mathias Herberts -
Vincent Massol