In my experience you can't trust the eta parameter. It's usually pretty close but often tasks will be as many as 10 minutes late.
On Jun 11, 10:46 am, james lesorg <[email protected]> wrote: > I really enjoyed this talk. Would make a great article. > > I wonder whether i understand the motivation behind "sequence" numbers > correctly: we cannot just timestamp worker entities and then churn > through them chronologically because instance times can be wildly out > of sync? If that's the case, how can i trust the eta parameter when > creating task objects? > > Is the possibility of a worker / task race condition really greater > than the risk of the memcache lock disappearing? Is it at all possible > that the memcache lock will disappear in this scenario, and if so how > can we survive this edge case? > > Sorry if this is a duplicate post - It seems the question i asked > earlier got lost in google groups weirdness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
