Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[smila-dev] BinStorage :: VFS vs. EFS 
Hi,

i opend a bug for the discussion on how apt VFS really is for SMILA or if we should go elsewhere, e.g. EFS.

feel free to join.

Kind regards
Thomas Menzel @ brox IT-Solutions GmbH


-----Original Message-----
From: smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Juergen.Schumacher@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2008 09:55
To: smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [smila-dev] Binary Storage Service - voting request forhierarchical structure

Hi, 

I'm not quite sure yet about what would be better, but ...

> - memory consumption and faster risk of OutOfMemory occurrence (the file system APIs creates listeners for all 
> these sub-folders in order to provide cache (refresh) functionality, so for single record there will be 5 
> listeners (4 sub-folders + 1 record) created and memory consumption increases significantly).

... is not really an argument for either solution. Half a memory leak is still a memory leak, and if this cannot be fixed in VFS, VFS is simply not appropriate for SMILA.

Apart from this: I don't like this part of the first proposal:

> Disadvantages
> - mapping between hashed ID and persistence path needs to be stored
> - possibility of assync. situations between the existing storage persistence and stored mapping

That sounds to complicated and error-prone.

So, I think this means I'm for the second solution (implemented without memory problems).

Cheers,
Juergen.
_______________________________________________
smila-dev mailing list
smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/smila-dev

Back to the top