Mailing List Archive: Zope: CMF

CMF write performance as poor as Plone?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

lists at zopyx

Nov 20, 2008, 10:31 PM

Post #1 of 16 (1048 views)
Permalink

CMF write performance as poor as Plone?

Hi there,

we are currently doing consultancy work for a bigger Zope-based CMS
project (lotes of users, lots of concurrent editors/write). Plone and
CMF are basically what we are looking into right now. It is well-known
that Plone is poor on concurrent write. It is basically impossible
creating more than 3-4 objects per second on decent hardware. On
observation we made was that Plone causes transaction size of 30k-100k
per each new object (this is also true trivial changes on existing
content objects). So I thought this might be a limiting factor and
looked at CMF. The transaction sizes under CMF are much smaller -
typically between 2k and 4k for new objects or object changes which is
looking good at the first glance. However the transaction size does not
seem to have any impact on the number of simulataneous writes.
I wrote script simple script like this:

results_folder[randint(1,500)].invokeFactory(Document, some_id)

where result_folder is a btree based folder containing 500 other empty
btree folders.

Running 'ab2 -n 100' against the site would create 100 new documents
distributed over the subfolder (avoid conflicts errors here).
The performance was nearly as bad as with Plone. It was hard getting
more 4-6 new objects per second out of a standard CMF site (2.1,
zope.schema-based types). Even variations of the zserver-threads and the
ab2 concurrency level did not help much.

hmm....so why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know that
everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but Plone has
much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request in Plone goes
through much more layers than in CMF....I am currently clueless
interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a custom
CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/fast as an
out-of-the-box solution?!

Thoughts?
Andreas

--
ZOPYX Ltd. & Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany
Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: info[at]zopyx.com - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535
Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

roche at upfrontsystems

Nov 20, 2008, 11:22 PM

Post #2 of 16 (996 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:31 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> we are currently doing consultancy work for a bigger Zope-based CMS
> project (lotes of users, lots of concurrent editors/write). Plone and
> CMF are basically what we are looking into right now. It is well-known
> that Plone is poor on concurrent write. It is basically impossible
> creating more than 3-4 objects per second on decent hardware. On
> observation we made was that Plone causes transaction size of 30k-100k
> per each new object (this is also true trivial changes on existing
> content objects). So I thought this might be a limiting factor and
> looked at CMF. The transaction sizes under CMF are much smaller -
> typically between 2k and 4k for new objects or object changes which is
> looking good at the first glance. However the transaction size does not
> seem to have any impact on the number of simulataneous writes.
> I wrote script simple script like this:
>
> results_folder[randint(1,500)].invokeFactory(Document, some_id)
>
> where result_folder is a btree based folder containing 500 other empty
> btree folders.
>
> Running 'ab2 -n 100' against the site would create 100 new documents
> distributed over the subfolder (avoid conflicts errors here).
> The performance was nearly as bad as with Plone. It was hard getting
> more 4-6 new objects per second out of a standard CMF site (2.1,
> zope.schema-based types). Even variations of the zserver-threads and the
> ab2 concurrency level did not help much.
>
> hmm....so why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know that
> everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but Plone has
> much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request in Plone goes
> through much more layers than in CMF....I am currently clueless
> interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a custom
> CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/fast as an
> out-of-the-box solution?!

I also suspected transaction size a while back but found that it doesn't
really impact on write performance. The one thing that stood out clearly
was the time it takes to index objects. I managed writes of up to 20
objects per second if I created the object with _setObject while
suppressing all events and manually re-indexing the object after
creation. Indexing in Plone improved once we cached the expensive Schema
lookup that is made for each attribute (see discussion on this in
plone-dev) but this shouldn't be an issue in CMF. Maybe there is
something else in CMF that slows down attribute access when objects are
indexed. I can almost guarantee that there is some application code that
slows down writes, since I know now that indexing and object creation is
relatively fast.

--
RochÃ© Compaan
Upfront Systems http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

charlie at begeistert

Nov 22, 2008, 6:39 AM

Post #3 of 16 (989 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

zop
Am 21.11.2008 um 07:31 schrieb Andreas Jung:

> hmm....so why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know
> that everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but
> Plone has much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request
> in Plone goes through much more layers than in CMF....I am currently
> clueless interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a
> custom CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/
> fast as an out-of-the-box solution?!

Hi Andreas,

a very interesting situation. I've never thought of object creation
when choosing "pure" CMF over Plone as this is largely a ZODB issue.
As Roché points out it is less likely to be the transactions and more
likely to be the cataloguing and any other event subscribers that are
limiting factors here. Speed comparions between CMF and Plone only
make sense for serving content where I find pure CMF to be at least 10
times as fast as Plone - I think the speed difference is largely down
to the sheer size of Archetypes and the overloading of getattr().

For tests you might want to see if you can defer indexing and I'd
suggest explicit transaction management. Any chance you can run the
tests outside the ZMI?

I currently have a migration from Plone to CMF and this is a bit of
the code I use.

import transaction
from zope.component import createObject
from zope.app.container.interfaces import INameChooser

from zope.event import notify
from zope.lifecycleevent import ObjectCreatedEvent

for i in range(randint(1,500)):
d = createObject("cmf.document", "")
d.id = INameChooser(results_folder).chooseName(d.getId(), d) # this
will be a bottleneck
results_folder._setObject(d.id, d)

transaction.commit()
for obj in results_folder.contentValues(filter='Document'):
notify(ObjectCreatedEvent(d))

You can run this to see the time it takes to create the invidiual
objects. You could run the transaction within the loop to see what
effect that has and you can add notification of the object creation to
the loop or outside of it to see how the event subscribers (usually
the portal catalogue) affects things.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

lists at zopyx

Nov 23, 2008, 12:15 AM

Post #4 of 16 (993 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

On 22.11.2008 15:39 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:

>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> a very interesting situation. I've never thought of object creation
> when choosing "pure" CMF over Plone as this is largely a ZODB issue.
> As Roché points out it is less likely to be the transactions and more
> likely to be the cataloguing and any other event subscribers that are
> limiting factors here. Speed comparions between CMF and Plone only
> make sense for serving content where I find pure CMF to be at least 10
> times as fast as Plone - I think the speed difference is largely down
> to the sheer size of Archetypes and the overloading of getattr().

The catalog is of course a hotspot. There is collective.indexing and the
catalog queue that ease the pain a bit and bring some improvements to
the overall performance (for both Plone and CMF) - however not as
satisfying as I was thinking of. Going with a RDBMS as backend is likely
the only option when it comes scalablity on a system with lots of
concurrent write.

Andreas

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

dieter at handshake

Nov 23, 2008, 12:17 AM

Post #5 of 16 (992 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-11-21 07:31 +0100:
> ... write performance ...
>However the transaction size does not
>seem to have any impact on the number of simulataneous writes.

Have you profiled an individual request to learn what the time is spent for?

If the time is dominated by client side activity, you need client side
skaling to increase the throughput significantly.

If, on the other hand, the time is heavily dominated by server side activity,
you would need backend skaling (which is currently quite difficult
to get) or get the backend significantly faster (I assume that
the bandwidth is not the limiting factor).

--
Dieter
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

lists at zopyx

Nov 23, 2008, 12:24 AM

Post #6 of 16 (991 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

On 23.11.2008 9:17 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-11-21 07:31 +0100:
>> ... write performance ...
>> However the transaction size does not
>> seem to have any impact on the number of simulataneous writes.
>
> Have you profiled an individual request to learn what the time is spent for?
>
> If the time is dominated by client side activity, you need client side
> skaling to increase the throughput significantly.

>
> If, on the other hand, the time is heavily dominated by server side activity,
> you would need backend skaling (which is currently quite difficult
> to get) or get the backend significantly faster (I assume that
> the bandwidth is not the limiting factor).
>

This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
running on the same (fast) machine.

Andreas

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

dieter at handshake

Nov 23, 2008, 12:56 AM

Post #7 of 16 (998 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-11-23 09:24 +0100:
> ...
>> Have you profiled an individual request to learn what the time is spent for?
>>
>> If the time is dominated by client side activity, you need client side
>> skaling to increase the throughput significantly.
>
>>
>> If, on the other hand, the time is heavily dominated by server side activity,
>> you would need backend skaling (which is currently quite difficult
>> to get) or get the backend significantly faster (I assume that
>> the bandwidth is not the limiting factor).
>>
>
>This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>running on the same (fast) machine.

The other responses you have gotten indicate that client side
activity (especially indexing) can significantly influence
the observed "write performance" (going down by one order of magnitude).

That means: it might be worth to check explicitely that this is not
the case in your setup.

If indexing is suppressed/delayed (as indicated in the other responses),
the number of "store" operations also decrease. Each "store" operation
may account for a few ms (I have observed a general ZEO overhead
of about 3 ms -- however some years ago and therefore on an older
hardware geneation; things may be faster nowadays).
Looking at the number of your "store"s (and the time they take),
you may check whether this may account for the pure write performance
you observe.
In this case, optimizations would be possible. In principle, the
"store"s could be batched rather than transmitted individually (of course,
this would require ZODB modifications).

--
Dieter
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

charlie at begeistert

Nov 23, 2008, 2:57 AM

Post #8 of 16 (982 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:

> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
> running on the same (fast) machine.

Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB? I'm just thinking
of an environment with lots of concurrent writes and content
management doesn't spring directly to mind. Have you looked at
performance with a standalone ZODB? If that isn't possible then you
will probably have to look at using an RDBMS and even then you might
need server-side optimisations for performance?

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

lists at zopyx

Nov 23, 2008, 3:11 AM

Post #9 of 16 (985 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>
>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>
>
> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?

I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
Plone like Document, News etc.

>I'm just thinking
> of an environment with lots of concurrent writes and content
> management doesn't spring directly to mind.

Write performance specially in Plone in always a topic in large
installations. Read performance is doable on large installations with
caching etc. But we know of several Plone projects that failed at some
point because you can't get a reasonable performance with lots of
editors working the same time with the system.

>If that isn't possible then you
> will probably have to look at using an RDBMS and even then you might
> need server-side optimisations for performance?

I just benchmarked that. I just wrote a a simple RDBMS-based Document
implementation (using SQLAlchemy and table inheritance for sharing
the dublin core table structure among different content-types). Against
a Postgres 7.4 database I could reach a performance of roughly 350
new documents per second with a pure python implementation. I am now
going to test the performance of the implementation with a CMF integration.

Andreas

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

tseaver at palladion

Nov 23, 2008, 5:10 AM

Post #10 of 16 (984 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Jung wrote:
> On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>
>>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>>
>> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?
>
>
> I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
> Plone like Document, News etc.

Are you trying to proceess feed content, one document per request? You
should be batching up that content, to get better amortization of the
indexing overhead.

You should also be checking for conflict errors: they would result in a
*large* performance hit.

Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver[at]palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJKVZL+gerLs4ltQ4RAtfYAJ4y11dcMlEFLJYKxcRCvI+qoWM3zgCg0Sh2
0CvciY+vn6F+XLC8eedAirs=
=bmyq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

me at rpatterson

Nov 23, 2008, 10:48 AM

Post #11 of 16 (983 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:

> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>>> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>>
>>>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>>>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>>>
>>> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?
>>
>>
>> I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
>> Plone like Document, News etc.
>
> Are you trying to proceess feed content, one document per request? You
> should be batching up that content, to get better amortization of the
> indexing overhead.
>
> You should also be checking for conflict errors: they would result in a
> *large* performance hit.

Quick question. How much of the write concurrency problem comes from
the fact that the ZPublisher retries the entire *request* on
WriteConflict instead of just trying to committing the transaction
again?

Ross

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

tseaver at palladion

Nov 23, 2008, 11:18 AM

Post #12 of 16 (983 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ross Patterson wrote:
> Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:
>
>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>> On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>>>> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>>>
>>>>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>>>>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>>>> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?
>>>
>>> I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
>>> Plone like Document, News etc.
>> Are you trying to proceess feed content, one document per request? You
>> should be batching up that content, to get better amortization of the
>> indexing overhead.
>>
>> You should also be checking for conflict errors: they would result in a
>> *large* performance hit.
>
> Quick question. How much of the write concurrency problem comes from
> the fact that the ZPublisher retries the entire *request* on
> WriteConflict instead of just trying to committing the transaction
> again?

It can't retry the commit: the point is that the conflict can't be
resolved using the values read from the database at the start of the
transaction. We have to redo the whole request, re-reading any objects
in the context of a new transaction; otherwise, we would be back to
"last write wins", which is a lose.

Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver[at]palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJKaxt+gerLs4ltQ4RApTVAKDHRJBiEBOqedIh8bh27d7VJMMozQCfacFs
jhNWzVm+L5XWHuK2XxNYlR4=
=Xgr3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

me at rpatterson

Nov 23, 2008, 11:24 AM

Post #13 of 16 (983 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:

> Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:
>>
>>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>>> On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>>>>> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>>>>>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>>>>> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?
>>>>
>>>> I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
>>>> Plone like Document, News etc.
>>> Are you trying to proceess feed content, one document per request? You
>>> should be batching up that content, to get better amortization of the
>>> indexing overhead.
>>>
>>> You should also be checking for conflict errors: they would result in a
>>> *large* performance hit.
>>
>> Quick question. How much of the write concurrency problem comes from
>> the fact that the ZPublisher retries the entire *request* on
>> WriteConflict instead of just trying to committing the transaction
>> again?
>
> It can't retry the commit: the point is that the conflict can't be
> resolved using the values read from the database at the start of the
> transaction. We have to redo the whole request, re-reading any objects
> in the context of a new transaction; otherwise, we would be back to
> "last write wins", which is a lose.

Not really what I meant, sorry for being unclear. I meant how much of
the write performance problem comes from the overhead of redoing the
whole request, rendering templates and such? I'm just wondering if
anyone has quantified that.

Ross

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

tseaver at palladion

Nov 23, 2008, 11:43 AM

Post #14 of 16 (978 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ross Patterson wrote:
> Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:
>
>> Ross Patterson wrote:
>>> Tres Seaver <tseaver[at]palladion.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>>>> On 23.11.2008 11:57 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>>>>>> Am 23.11.2008 um 09:24 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This issue is independent of the client-side. ab2 and cmf/plone were
>>>>>>> running on the same (fast) machine.
>>>>>> Is this really content that is suited for the ZODB?
>>>>> I am talking of the standard content-types that are available in CMF and
>>>>> Plone like Document, News etc.
>>>> Are you trying to proceess feed content, one document per request? You
>>>> should be batching up that content, to get better amortization of the
>>>> indexing overhead.
>>>>
>>>> You should also be checking for conflict errors: they would result in a
>>>> *large* performance hit.
>>> Quick question. How much of the write concurrency problem comes from
>>> the fact that the ZPublisher retries the entire *request* on
>>> WriteConflict instead of just trying to committing the transaction
>>> again?
>> It can't retry the commit: the point is that the conflict can't be
>> resolved using the values read from the database at the start of the
>> transaction. We have to redo the whole request, re-reading any objects
>> in the context of a new transaction; otherwise, we would be back to
>> "last write wins", which is a lose.
>
> Not really what I meant, sorry for being unclear. I meant how much of
> the write performance problem comes from the overhead of redoing the
> whole request, rendering templates and such? I'm just wondering if
> anyone has quantified that.

I doubt anyone has done so: the results would likely be highly
dependent on the specific application.

Back in the day, the render-time penalty was one of the reasons I
disliked self-posting forms (for updates): I preferred the
"update-and-redirect" model, both to avoid rendering during / after the
update, and also to avoid screwing up the browser cache with POST requests.

Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver[at]palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJKbJZ+gerLs4ltQ4RAr3fAKCbL7zElLcQ+ay8J3vl3EvUEwX0wQCfaEPY
y12fwCwskKLPZy/a0hVrbvU=
=gBMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

lists at zopyx

Nov 24, 2008, 1:42 AM

Post #15 of 16 (966 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

So weit bei mir nichts dazwischen kommt könnte ich ab 13h.

Gruß,
Andreas

On 22.11.2008 15:39 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
> zop
> Am 21.11.2008 um 07:31 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>
>> hmm....so why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know
>> that everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but
>> Plone has much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request
>> in Plone goes through much more layers than in CMF....I am currently
>> clueless interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a
>> custom CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/
>> fast as an out-of-the-box solution?!
>

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

lists at zopyx

Nov 24, 2008, 1:45 AM

Post #16 of 16 (966 views)
Permalink

Re: CMF write performance as poor as Plone? [In reply to]

ooopss - wrong list :-)

On 24.11.2008 10:42 Uhr, Andreas Jung wrote:
> So weit bei mir nichts dazwischen kommt könnte ich ab 13h.
>
> Gruß,
> Andreas
>
> On 22.11.2008 15:39 Uhr, Charlie Clark wrote:
>> zop
>> Am 21.11.2008 um 07:31 schrieb Andreas Jung:
>>
>>> hmm....so why is CMF here nearly as bad a Plone. In Plone we know
>>> that everything is indexed various times (also in CMF I think) but
>>> Plone has much more indexes and metadata compared to CMF. A request
>>> in Plone goes through much more layers than in CMF....I am currently
>>> clueless interpreting the results. My current interpretation is: a
>>> custom CMF-based implementation of a CMS will be comparable slow/
>>> fast as an out-of-the-box solution?!
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
>
> See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

--
ZOPYX Ltd. & Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany
Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: info[at]zopyx.com - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535
Geschäftsführer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting

Attachments:

lists.vcf (0.31 KB)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com