On Aug 6, 8:33 pm, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tobiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:30:51 +0200, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > Do you think you could use an SQL database on the network to
> > handle the locking?
>
> Yeah, I could. It wouldn't even have to be over
Tobiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:30:51 +0200, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
>> files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
>> files is a waste of resources, but I cannot
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:30:51 +0200, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
> files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
> files is a waste of resources, but I cannot use a global lock for all
> of them either
On Aug 6, 1:33 pm, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Freaky... I just posted nearly this exact solution.
>
> > I have a couple comments. First, the call to acquire should come
> > before the try block. If the acquire were to fail, you wouldn't w
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Freaky... I just posted nearly this exact solution.
>
> I have a couple comments. First, the call to acquire should come
> before the try block. If the acquire were to fail, you wouldn't want
> to release the lock on cleanup.
>
> Second, you need to change
On Aug 6, 6:34 am, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This should work, at least the idea is not flawed. However, I'd say
> >> there are too many locks involved. Rather, you just need a simple
> >> flag and the global lock. Further, you need a
On Aug 4, 9:30 am, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
> files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
> files is a waste of resources, but I cannot use a global lock for all
> of them either
Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This should work, at least the idea is not flawed. However, I'd say
>> there are too many locks involved. Rather, you just need a simple
>> flag and the global lock. Further, you need a condition/event that
>> tells waiting threads that you released some
Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
>> files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
>> files is a waste of resources, but I cannot use a global lock for all
>> of them either
Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
> files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
> files is a waste of resources, but I cannot use a global lock for all
> of them either (since the locked operations go over the network,
Hello,
I need to synchronize the access to a couple of hundred-thousand
files[1]. It seems to me that creating one lock object for each of the
files is a waste of resources, but I cannot use a global lock for all
of them either (since the locked operations go over the network, this
would make the
11 matches
Mail list logo
