<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: acitiviti BPM scalability in Alfresco Forum</title>
    <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-forum/acitiviti-bpm-scalability/m-p/36219#M15266</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;While more recent benchmark data is hard to find, the article below provides a good look at Activiti engine performance from a couple of years back:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="link-titled" href="http://www.jorambarrez.be/blog/2012/06/28/the-activiti-performance-showdown/" title="http://www.jorambarrez.be/blog/2012/06/28/the-activiti-performance-showdown/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"&gt;The Activiti Performance Showdown | Small steps with big feet&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Considering there have been no significant architectural changes in the underlying engine, I expect very similar results in 5.22.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And, as always with state machines, the database is almost always the limiting factor.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Greg&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://migration33.stage.lithium.com/t5/tag/bp3/tg-p"&gt;&lt;/A&gt;‌&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 16:58:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>gdharley</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-05-17T16:58:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>acitiviti BPM scalability</title>
      <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-forum/acitiviti-bpm-scalability/m-p/36218#M15265</link>
      <description>We are working on integrating the activiti engine into our workflow.&amp;nbsp;How well does the engine scale?&amp;nbsp; For example, we need to create and deploy in hundred(s) work flows to be executed? Is there a bottleneck in the database performance? when multiple of these work flows need to access the database fo</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2017 15:28:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-forum/acitiviti-bpm-scalability/m-p/36218#M15265</guid>
      <dc:creator>saisujatha</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-05-16T15:28:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: acitiviti BPM scalability</title>
      <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-forum/acitiviti-bpm-scalability/m-p/36219#M15266</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;While more recent benchmark data is hard to find, the article below provides a good look at Activiti engine performance from a couple of years back:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="link-titled" href="http://www.jorambarrez.be/blog/2012/06/28/the-activiti-performance-showdown/" title="http://www.jorambarrez.be/blog/2012/06/28/the-activiti-performance-showdown/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"&gt;The Activiti Performance Showdown | Small steps with big feet&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Considering there have been no significant architectural changes in the underlying engine, I expect very similar results in 5.22.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And, as always with state machines, the database is almost always the limiting factor.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Greg&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://migration33.stage.lithium.com/t5/tag/bp3/tg-p"&gt;&lt;/A&gt;‌&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 16:58:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-forum/acitiviti-bpm-scalability/m-p/36219#M15266</guid>
      <dc:creator>gdharley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-05-17T16:58:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

