ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Date Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:03:56 GMT
I've populated FAQ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/FAQ

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
> christos@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
> >
> > Please feel free to add to it.
> >
>
> Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias):
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq
>
> I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done.
>
>
> > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
> >
>
> I don’t think we need to.
>
>
> >
> > Christos
> >
> > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 on FAQ
> > >
> > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yakov,
> > >>
> > >> I've answered.
> > >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish
> same
> > >> things.
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >>>
> > >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding
> optimized-classnames.properties.
> > >>> Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --Yakov
> > >>>
> > >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> > to
> > >>>> myself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --Yakov
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to
the next
> > >>>>> release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Vladisav
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
has the
> > >>>>> same
> > >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot
be
> > >>>>> changed
> > >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
lock is
> > >>>>> held. The
> > >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the
lock()
> issue
> > >>>>> can be
> > >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > >>>>> currently
> > >>>>>> works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
message,
> > my
> > >>>>> first
> > >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
which
> > led
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
please
> > >>>>> re-test
> > >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
when
> I'm
> > >>>>> done
> > >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message