You're the boss !
thks a lot, I can achieve it with R_R and your trick.
I will leave dummy key as I understand it is much better than other solution ,
for the cost of time.
thanks again.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4158317#4158317
Reply to
SERIALIZABLE will obtain a SERIALIZABLE lock on the entire cache.
You really won't have much concurrency at all using SERIALIZABLE. I'd
recommend R_R.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4158274#4158274
Reply to the post :
no , what I want exactly is :
1) node 1 read /root/subroot/A
2) other nodes cannot read /root/subroot/A as node 1 is reading it (locked)
3) node 5 read /root/subroot/B
4) other nodes cannot read /root/subroot/B as node 5 is reading it (locked)
5) node 1 finishing reading (and writing
If you were using 2.X there is a setForceWriteLock() option which would have
worked for you.
As a workaround, you could do this:
1. Configure your cache with R_R.
2. Start your transaction.
3. Whenever you need to READ a node, first WRITE a dummy value to it. E.g.,
Well, I don't want any concurrency.
The fact is if one node of the farm is reading one node of the tree cache,
other node won't we allowed to read .
but with REPEATABLE_READ, all nodes can read cache.
if the first node read, override with same data, re - read, and I choose R_R,
will it lock
If you don't want any concurrency then that is exactly what you have - when
/root/subroot/A is read, no one can read any other node. :-)
Perhaps what you want is different caches for each subroot then?
View the original post :
well I understand ur point of view.
I'm exactly use TreeCache (1.4.1 SP3 with Jboss 4.0.5GA) in this way :
put all my objects at /root/subroot , so I have :
| /root
| /subroot
| Integer1 : Object1
| Integer2 : Object2
| Integer3 : Object3
|
instead, I must have as
Yes, having each one in a separate node will allow you to lock each key/value
pair separately - if that is what you want to achieve.
Re: dummy objects, you may as well leave them there since a put() when the
key/value already exists is faster than if it didn't exist, plus you don't have
to
so, anybody has one solution for my use case ?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4157875#4157875
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4157875
___
jboss-user
oups, don't care about READ_UNCOMMITTED in conf file, it is SERIALIZABLE I use.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4157736#4157736
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4157736
10 matches
Mail list logo
