ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christos Erotocritou <chris...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:20:48 GMT
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.

Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?

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
View raw message