xml-xindice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Ross" <Kevin.R...@iVerticalLeap.com>
Subject RE: Strange Solaris behavior
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:15:20 GMT
Not sure if this is related, but from my solaris days, I know we had to
adjust the ulimit.  From the readme, it suggests you do this on Linux:

ulimit -s 2048 for SDK 1.3.1

Give it a shot on solaris and let us know if it is of any help.

-Kevin Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hosier [mailto:david@longviewsoftware.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:55 PM
To: xindice-users@xml.apache.org
Subject: Strange Solaris behavior


I am running Xindice 1.0 on Solaris 8 with JDK1.3.1, and I am having
some strange behavior.  We have an application that is loading 6500+
documents into the database.  These are small documents; just object
serializations using XMLEncoder.  When we ran the application using a
Xindice instance running on a Windows XP machine, the documents were all
stored in less 1.5 minutes and I was able to get constant updates of the
progress with "xindice ld -c /db/gateway".  However, when we run Xindice
on our Solaris 8 machines, the behavior is not the same.  It takes about
1 minute to store 81 documents and when I issue the 'ld' command, I only
get updates in increments of 81.  For example, I will run the command
about 1 minute into the process and get 81 documents listed.  I will run
the command again 20 seconds later and still get 81.  I can keep doing
this for a while with the same results.  Then eventually I will get 162
documents, then 243, and so on in increments of 81 at lengthy intervals.
This happened on two separate Solaris machines with the same specs.

This seems very strange since when run on Windows XP, I can get
constantly updating figures with 'ld'.  Plus it is agonizingly slower.
Granted my Windows box is much faster than the Solaris machines, but I
doubt it is 20+ times faster.  Has anyone seen this type of behavior
before?  Is it normal for it to be that slow and update in groups of 81?
Any suggestions would be great!  Thanks for your time.

David Hosier
Software Engineer
Longview Software

View raw message