Don't transactional caches require a JTA cache manager being present, configured and
running?
On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:10, Mircea Markus wrote:
Hi,
ATM the default cache transaction model in 5.1 is transactional. The main reason
transactional cache was chosen by default was backward compatibility: existing code that
access the cache in a mixed way (i.e. both transactional and non transactional) would fail
if the default mode is non transactional. By fail I don't mean a runtime exception
being thrown, but the the operations in transaction's scope being executed
individually and the transaction ignored.
As Galder highlighted, the problem with being transactional by default is that you pay a
penalti if you take Infinispan and run out of the box as a simple local cache for example.
In theory, in only makes sense to enable transactional behaivour if you want transactions.
[1]
Shall we switch to non-tx caches by default? Or implement ISPN-61 in 5.1, measure
performance and if perf is ok stick with transactional cache? [2] Opinions?
Cheers,
Mircea
[1]
a). The performance for a get should be the same for a tx and non tx cache.
b) Put's performance is better now: 1RPC for non-tx and 2 RPC for tx. However this
will change once
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-61. With ISPN-61 implemented, I
expect the performance of both tx and non-tx caches to be roughly the same.
[2] Implementing first optimisation described in ISPN-61 is rather trivial right now.
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev