river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From MICHAEL MCGRADY <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>
Subject Re: datastructure classes
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:28:26 GMT
Dan, what is "(TM)"?

On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Dan Creswell wrote:

> 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

Michael McGrady
Chief Architect
Topia Technology, Inc.
Cel 1.253.720.3365
Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037

View raw message