On Apr 12, 2005 8:58 PM, Daniel Salama <dsalama at user.net> wrote:
> 
> I was definitely impressed with OmniBase's performance. As I had said
> in previous postings, OB has provided me the best performance so far
> during my tests and every day I feel more confident in OB. Also, as I
> mentioned in the past, I am now getting ready to purchase a commercial
> license for it and hope to get the Linux file locking support from Avi
> as well. Also, I hope my move towards purchasing a license motivates
> others (e.g. Cees de Groot) to help David support and maintain OB. I
> also wish there was better documentation for it.

For what it's worth, I recently sent David Gorisek all of the patches
from our production use of OmniBase.  He said he would integrate them
and get a new release out by the end of the week, which should include
the Linux file locking support.  This will also require a new version
of OSProcess, which Dave Lewis should hopefully be releasing in the
next couple of wees.  So, we're getting there.

> I was a bit disappointed at the performance of GOODS. I like the GOODS
> server and the people I have talked with regarding its performance
> under "heavier" loads are very happy with it. Again, as I mentioned in
> previous postings, they are not using Smalltalk. They are using Java or
> C. As Avi said, it could be a performance tuning issue with the Squeak
> GOODS classes and hopefully that would improve over time.

I suspect that's true.  There's a lot of tuning work that could and
should be done there, if someone ever has time to do it.  Although I'm
also quite certain that GOODS will never be as fast as OmniBase for
single machine use, simply because of the architecture.  OTOH, scaling
OmniBase to multiple servers is more difficult.

Cheers,
Avi