On 8/13/2010 3:49 AM, Kevin Day wrote:
Yes - my understanding is that the jdbm2 files are much, much more efficiently managed than the jdbm1 files (and a lot faster as well).
I'll be interested to see if you experience any corruption along that front.  I realize that this isn't exactly what you wanted to hear (looking for a single-file solution)...  Thanks for running the test.

Regarding the jdbm2 test, I was planning on running it overnight for good measure, but I accidentally hibernated my computer before I left (that's my normal routine -- I just forgot to leave it running).  But I still got 37.4k iterations done with no detected problem.  I just killed it -- the final cumulative file size is 2.24mb.


- K
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
From: Jim Newsham <jnewsham@referentia.com>
To: jdbm-general@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:42:17 -1000
Subject: Re: [Jdbm-general] Fwd: re:  jdbm2 mailing list; jdbm corruption
On 8/12/2010 1:48 PM, Jim Newsham wrote:
On 8/12/2010 12:59 PM, Jim Newsham wrote:
Would you be willing to run the same test on the jdbm2 codebase?  It would interesting to know if the problem exists in both places (if it does, it would give at least a hint of where the problem is coming from).
  Sure, I'll give that a try.

Ok I'm running the same test for jdbm2 right now.  There were some very minor api changes, but basically the same code.  I'll report back on the results when I have them.  I immediately noticed that the check() method runs in faster -- in 10ms as opposed to 25ms for jdbm1.

The jdbm2 test has been running for 26,845 iterations and counting.  No problem yet.  Interestingly, the db files total 1.6mb, whereas the jdbm1 test files were 90mb after 12,500 iterations.

I'm going to let it continue to run.


This SF.net email is sponsored by

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
Jdbm-general mailing list