db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mahler <thm...@web.de>
Subject Re: [PFE] locking via database for multi-VM environment
Date Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:00:11 GMT
Hi again Oleg,

Oleg Nitz wrote:
> On Sunday 21 December 2003 10:51, Thomas Mahler wrote:
>>>1) Locks should be represented by one record per one locked object.
>>>Such record should contain
>>>- object ID
>>>- ID of VM holding write lock and
>>>- IDs for VMs that hold read locks
>>>This means that the total number of VMs is limited by the number of
>>>fields for reader's IDs, but we can make this limit configurable. It is
>>>limited by the number of columns allowed by RDBMS. I think this is
>>>acceptable way.
>>two things:
>>1. how can be distinguish transaction running in the same VM in your
>>approach? I firmly believe that we nee a mechanism to identify
>>transactions across VMs and physical machines. That' why I propose to
>>use GUIDs as a unique key for transactions!
> This is just an optimization: one VM can handle locking by all transactions 
> running in it, and all it need to know about transactions running in other 
> VMs is whether they have at least one read lock and at least one write lock. 
> So each VM can calculate these two aggregate values over all transactions and 
> write them to database. This would essentially reduce the number of database 
> operations.
> More precisely, in OTM there will be a LockMap implementation (it has other 
> sense than LockMap class in ODMG) which will track all locks for the given 
> OTMKit. But since OTM allows multiple OTMKits in the same VM, there may be 
> many LockMap instances. Thus lock record should contain LockMap IDs rather 
> than VM IDs.

Ahh, good idea, makes a lot of sense!

> And I forgot to mention the timestamp field for the lock record.
>>2. I don't think that it is a good idea to have any kind of limit here.
>>I know a lot of discussions about the locking mechanisms in Oracle vs.
>>DB2. Once there is any fixed limit, people start to blame you for having
>>a non scalable, not enterprise ready solution.
>>So I'd recommend to avoid any kind of limit in this area.
> First of all, please note that we will limit not the number of transactions, 
> but the number of computers in a cluster (well, actually LockMaps). How many 
> computers in a cluster can you imagine? I can hardly imagine 10 :)
> I can't imagine more than 500 computers. 


> 500 is the limit for number of columns for DB2, other popular databases have 
> greater limits. 
> I propose to have the limit of 10 by default (or 16, or 32) and to describe in 
> docs the way to increase it: alter table to add columns and change 
> OJB.properties to increase the limit.

Maybe we don't reach the limit in most situations. but i don't like this 
approach for principal reasons.
mapping a 1:n relation on one table by storing the dependend objects (or 
their keys) in the columns of one record is one of the most ugly 
violations of database normalization.
Even if it works I don't think we should foster such a design.

> Okay, let's consider other variants.
> 1) use one long char field to store all readers (longvarchar, text, clob).
> + : simple DB stucture
> - : such long fields are usually processed slower than "short" char fields 
> with length <= 254, sometimes they take more storage space ( >= 2K per row 
> for Sybase), sometimes need special JDBC tricks (Oracle CLOBs).

I agree, storing this information in a long field will decrease the 
overall performance.

> 2) use two tables: 
> first for object ID, writer VM ID and timestamp, 
> second for object ID and reader VM ID 
> We can't use one table as now in ODMG because of the 1st problem mentioned in 
> my original post: different locks on the same object should modify the same 
> database record, otherwise adding two write locks is possible, or adding 
> write lock together with read lock.
> + : no limits
> - : slower

+ clean table layout
+ full database index support

This is my preferred RDBMS based solution. I don't think that it is 
bound to be slower as it allows to use indixes which is only supported 
partially by the other solutions.

> 3) don't use database at all, have simple lock manager with RMI interface, it 
> should keep all locks in memory and automatically remove timed out locks. 
> This will work much faster than database operations. If you take seriously 
> the Prevayler's idea to keep all database records in memory, :o) 
> it would be reasonable to assume that there is enough memory for locks.
> +: faster, no explicit limits
> -: implicitely limited by available memory

I like no 3. ! In fact my whole idea of a LockManager was inspired by 
the LockServer of the OO database Objectivity. In Objecttivity the 
Lockserver is a separate server process that works exactly as you 
describe it in 3)

I would like to see it implemented as a servlet. If we ship it as a 
servlet we don't have to implement a complete server infrastructure, but 
could rely on the servlet engine.

For me this is the best solution, as I really don' like to use a 
database application that limits scalability by the numer of supported 


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message