We're using 7.9 on Linux. But I think there's something wrong with the VMs, as on my laptop BaseX runs really fast.
We'll upgrade to latest, and hopefully I'll figure out why the VMs are so slow. I panicked a bit since I don't know much about BaseX, but it looks it could work. We still have a lot of load, so I'll let you know how it goes when we enable it again in production.
Martín.
> From: christian.gruen@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:12:48 +0200
> Subject: Re: [basex-talk] Performance and heavy load
> To: ferrari_martin@hotmail.com
> CC: basex-talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de
>
> Out of interest: Do you use a recent version of BaseX?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Martín Ferrari
> <ferrari_martin@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I'm quite new to BaseX. I've read a bit already, but perhaps you can
> > help so I can investigate further. We are having a performance problem with
> > our BaseX server. We're running it on a VM, and hitting it from around 5 web
> > servers.
> >
> > Under no stress, I get this timing from the log for a 1191 bytes file.
> >
> > 00:01:23.526 ww.aa.yy.xx:56312 admin REQUEST [PUT]
> > http://basex.xxxxxx:8984/rest/PaymentLogs_1/WRP.BR-4273791-1_PaymentGateway_Response_20150728000116.xml
> > 00:01:24.967 ww.aa.yy.xx:56312 admin 201 1 resource(s) replaced in
> > 1401.17 ms. 1441.24 ms
> >
> > A call to /rest takes about 4-5 ms (it's called around once each 2 seconds,
> > though it's not needed):
> >
> > 00:01:23.520 ww.aa.yy.zz:56312 admin REQUEST [GET]
> > http://basex.xxxxxxxx:8984/rest
> > 00:01:23.524 ww.aa.yy.xx:56312 admin 200 4.67 ms
> >
> >
> > Is the 1400 ms time normal for storing one xml file less than 2kb
> > (storing a 10kb file took 1200 ms, so I'm not sure size mattered that much)?
> >
> > And also, when the load starts to get heavier, from 7 to 12 files per
> > second, BaseX server quickly starts to get slower, then taking minutes to
> > respond, until finally it starts giving errors about the database being
> > currently opened by another process, and too many open files. Many
> > connections remain in the CLOSE_WAIT state, and the server is no longer
> > usable.
> >
> > Is it reasonable to expect to [PUT] more than 10 files per second, some of
> > them taking more than 10kb? We're using it for logging, so that's a lot of
> > xml files. If it's reasonable to use it that way, I'll dig more into
> > optimizing it. Is anyone using it in a similar way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Martín.