We piloted nexus and artifactory. We kept artifact...

2011-11-01T16:49:41.119+02:00

We piloted nexus and artifactory. We kept artifactory. The reason:

User experience. They just liked the interface better. Keep up the good work

Some updates: Artifactory for a long time support...

2010-07-25T18:02:19.667+03:00

Some updates:

Artifactory for a long time supports both file-system and database storage backends. Storage is checksum-based, so there is never duplication of data and operations like copy or move are cheap and super fast.

Interestingly, from a quick scan of the Nexus lists, even Nexus dev leads are raising the need for a reliable transactional JCR storage in Nexus in favor of the plain file system. Now that Nexus offers some support for properties, like in Artifactory, one can only wonder how this type of metadata can be managed reliably using the current storage.

File system as a recovery safe net is also proven wrong - without backups you can end up with corrupt Nexus instances.
Needing backups is a reality and backups should not be made from the runtime workspace (this is sometimes suggested to Nexus users) - taking snapshots from a live storage will randomly, at best, yield a consistent replica, add to this the fact that it is not uncommon for backup software to actually touch the files they back up. Artifactory provides scheduled live backups out of the box to solve this problem.

In my company, we are using both Artifactory and N...

2009-04-03T23:33:00.000+03:00

In my company, we are using both Artifactory and Nexus Sonatype. I believe all your points here are valid. Please keep up the good work and develop some new great features for Artifactory.
Thanks for developing a valuable solution for Maven repository management.
Regards,

Comments on From the Frog's Mouth: Re: Contrasting Artifactory and Nexus

We piloted nexus and artifactory. We kept artifact...

Some updates: Artifactory for a long time support...

In my company, we are using both Artifactory and N...