Gotta be careful how you say things... I completely understand a better
performing lock manager.
When parallel systems step on each others locks, usually data corruption
is the result. Those kinds of words make me nervous.
That's what I get for spending 15 years worrying about clustering and
high-availability.
Thanks for the clarification!
-- Alan
On 08/17/2014 04:45 PM, Philip Rathle wrote:
Right. It definitely does not mean data corruption; just less (or
more) waiting.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Chris Vest
<chris.v...@neotechnology.com <mailto:chris.v...@neotechnology.com>>
wrote:
It means the enterprise lock manager copes better with higher
contention. In other words, it performs better than the community
lock manager.
--
Chris Vest
System Engineer, Neo Technology
[ skype: mr.chrisvest, twitter: chvest ]
On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:16, Alan Robertson <al...@unix.sh
<mailto:al...@unix.sh>> wrote:
the_Enterprise Lock Manager_ *keeps locks from stepping on each
other*on machines with > 5 cores.
"/Stepping on each other/" generally means data corruption. My
test machine has 8 cores. So, I should expect database corruption?
--
*Philip Rathle*
VP of Products | Neo Technology
+1.650.918.9595 | @prathle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
