river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: datastructure classes
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:13:01 GMT
Blitz too has optional FIFO-ness via configuration though it's absolutely a
performance killer for any decent concurrent load by virtue of the usual
suspects such as lock contention and the high chance of scanning entry's
that have just been taken by a thread just ahead in the queue.

To be honest though, unless FIFO is spec'd officially as an option or a
default, having developers rely on magic such as FIFO by default is "very
bad" (TM).

On 20 December 2010 20:30, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:

> Tom Hobbs wrote:
>> I know of at least one company which uses Outrigger specifically
>> because of it's fortuitous FIFO behaviour.  I'm trying to encourage
>> them to move from the Jini 2.1 code to the River release and losing
>> the FIFO-ness might be an issue for them.
>> And yes I know, the spec doesn't specify FIFO, like I said, they
>> needed a FIFO space, and Outrigger "just happened" to behave like
>> that.
> That confirms my suspicion that FIFO-ness is a useful property. I note that
> Gigaspaces has optional support for FIFO.
> My quick changes to try to fix the current bug will preserve it. If the
> long term design loses it for flat-out performance, we should make it
> available on a configuration basis.
> Patricia

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