On 6/25/2011 8:24 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
I played around with the bakery algorithm and had ok success the
challenges are most implementations assume an n size array of fixed
clients and when you get it working it turns out to be a good number
of cassandra ops to acquire your bakery lock.
I
I played around with the bakery algorithm and had ok success the
challenges are most implementations assume an n size array of fixed
clients and when you get it working it turns out to be a good number
of cassandra ops to acquire your bakery lock.
On Saturday, June 25, 2011, AJ wrote:
> On 6/24/2
On 6/24/2011 2:27 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
Might be able to do it with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport%27s_bakery_algorithm. "It is
remarkable that this algorithm is not built on top of some lower level
"atomic" operation, e.g. compare-and-swap."
This looks like it may work. Jonathan, h
On 6/24/2011 2:27 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
Might be able to do it with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport%27s_bakery_algorithm. "It is
remarkable that this algorithm is not built on top of some lower level
"atomic" operation, e.g. compare-and-swap."
I've been meaning to get back to reading t
On 6/24/2011 2:09 PM, Jim Newsham wrote:
On 6/24/2011 9:28 AM, Yang wrote:
without a clear description of your pseudo-code, it's difficult to
say whether it will work.
but I think it can work fine as an election/agreement protocol, which
you can use as a lock to some degree, but this requires
Might be able to do it with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport%27s_bakery_algorithm. "It is
remarkable that this algorithm is not built on top of some lower level
"atomic" operation, e.g. compare-and-swap."
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM, AJ wrote:
> Sorry, I know this is long-winded but I ju
On 6/24/2011 9:28 AM, Yang wrote:
without a clear description of your pseudo-code, it's difficult to say
whether it will work.
but I think it can work fine as an election/agreement protocol, which
you can use as a lock to some degree, but this requires
all the potential lock contenders to all
by "possible node N", I mean possible clients that will ever try to do the
locking
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Yang wrote:
> without a clear description of your pseudo-code, it's difficult to say
> whether it will work.
>
> but I think it can work fine as an election/agreement protocol, w
without a clear description of your pseudo-code, it's difficult to say
whether it will work.
but I think it can work fine as an election/agreement protocol, which you
can use as a lock to some degree, but this requires
all the potential lock contenders to all participate, you can't grab a lock
bef
Sorry, I know this is long-winded but I just want to make sure before I
go through the trouble to implement this since it's not something that
can be reliably tested and requires in-depth knowledge about C*
internals. But, this ultimately deals with concurrency control so
anyone interested in
10 matches
Mail list logo
