When timeout is reached (waiting for job result), client tried to
acquire lock than do the job if succeed... Cycle.
Deadlock lives shortly.
On 25 мар, 23:55, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
gf wrote:
How does the updater distinguish itself from the rest?
acquire() (atomic add).
, not find data, wait a millisecond and try
again.
Just my .02.
2009/3/24 gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com
On 24 мар, 07:39, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 22, 4:20 am, gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. It would be great to add new wait timeout
from memcached in the application layer by read-through caching...
this is how memcached is intended to be used.
Cheers,
Toru
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:20 PM, gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. It would be great to add new wait timeout argument to the get
() method
On Mar 25, 9:26 am, gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, it is primitive implementation. Many threads can repeats one job.
The best solution is acquiring the mutex, if acquired than we have to
do the job and write to memcached, else we have to wait untill another
thread (who
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
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
А) It's possible if the timeout is big, I intend to use 0.1 as the
timeout.
B) It's possible. But the same (or lower) number of clients repeating
get() every several ms run the server out of resources early.
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
How does the updater distinguish itself from the rest?
acquire() (atomic add).
On 25 мар, 21:38, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
gf wrote:
А) It's possible if the timeout is big, I intend to use 0.1 as the
timeout.
Blocking everything for .1 sec would be a very bad thing. Is
gf wrote:
How does the updater distinguish itself from the rest?
acquire() (atomic add).
So a whole bunch of clients try to add some sort of key that you hope
are identical so all but one fail, the one that succeeds is supposed to
do some more work? What if its next step fails?
--
Les
On 24 мар, 07:39, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 22, 4:20 am, gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. It would be great to add new wait timeout argument to the get
() method. If it is defined and the key doesn't exists a the moment,
client should wait untill the key
and try
again.
Just my .02.
2009/3/24 gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com
On 24 мар, 07:39, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 22, 4:20 am, gf kak.serpom.po.yait...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. It would be great to add new wait timeout argument to the
get
...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. It would be great to add new wait timeout argument to the
get
() method. If it is defined and the key doesn't exists a the
moment,
client should wait untill the key will be added or untill the
timeout
will be reached (client gets false
13 matches
Mail list logo
