A) It's possible if the timeout is big, but I intend to use 0.1
seconds as the timeout.
B) You are right. However, the lower number of clients repeating
queries every several ms run the server out of resources early.
On 25 мар, 20:07, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 9:31 am, gf <kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thank you for your anwer.
> >> I can pay if necessary. How much it costs?
>
> > I can build you a custom version of memcached that does whatever you
> > want, but you'd have to consider:
>
> > 1) This will not be part of the core memcached server -- so you'll
> > be kind of stuck with whatever build I make you.
> > 2) If you wanted to also run this as a memcached instance, the data
> > loss properties that make memcached such a good cache would conflict
> > with your lock/queue goals.
>
> > Also, I don't think it's a very good idea, so a lot of the
> > negotiation time would be me trying to talk you out of it. :)
>
> If you put this in the server, don't you set up conditions for:
>
> A) all clients trigger the wait and thus deadlock
> and/or
> B) some number of clients run the server out of resources
>
> ??
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikes...@gmail.com
