Andy Thanks very much for the quick work. I will give the new version a try tomorrow and let you know how I get on.
Cheers Bill On 3 Apr 2012, at 17:19, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Bill, Paul, > cc Bernie > > Fix applied which should be picked up by tonight's build cycle. > > Bill - thanks for the details, I managed to recreate the situation > > Paul - I haven't managed to exactly recreate the situation from your > description but this would explain it. The fact I can't recreate is just > because I haven't hit the right timing sequence (I'm fairly sure that, while > the concurrency hole looks big when looking at the code, JITting and the > possibility of putting values on the stack means the timing hole is very much > reduced). > > Bernie - FYI - this does not change the fact the best use of Datasets is one > per thread. > > Andy > > > On 02/04/12 21:20, Bill Roberts wrote: >> Great, sounds promising. Now in JIRA: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-230 >> >> thanks >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 20:19, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>> On 02/04/12 20:00, Bill Roberts wrote: >>>> Ah, sorry, misread your previous mail re stage 3 queries. >>>> >>>> No, the number of queries at this point doesn't seem to make any >>>> difference, as long as the PUT has finished. >>>> >>> >>> Great - and I have a theory I need to test out. >>> >>> (If it's a valid theory, this is the same root cause as Paul Gearon's >>> problems despite them looking different to me initially). >>> >>> Andy >>> >>>> >>>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 19:37, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/04/12 19:33, Bill Roberts wrote: >>>>>> Hi Andy >>>>>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 14:23, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Bill, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the delay in replying. It was too sunny. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No problem! I am all for appreciating a bit of sunniness when the chance >>>>>> presents itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please add it to JIRA. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's nothing I can see that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (how much RAM?) >>>>>> >>>>>> 16 GB on the server for the problems that I reported last week. 2GB on >>>>>> my Mac where this specific test was run (and a fair bit of that used by >>>>>> other software). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> big.ttl is the imd-2010-imd-score.ttl file? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I've tried it with a few different files (including that one) - same >>>>>> effect with each. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it have to be 2 queries at stage 3? Does one have the same effect? >>>>>>> None? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just tested a bit more: with a single query during the PUT, it worked >>>>>> correctly 4 out of 5 times and failed once. With two queries during the >>>>>> PUT, the problem occurred in all tests (tried about 10 times with 3 >>>>>> different 'big' files). >>>>> >>>>> stage 3 is the queries after little the PUT - I'm guessing these make no >>>>> difference if little PUT has finished. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks very much >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
