Hi, Comments inline.
Cheers, Pedro Paolo Romano wrote: > On 3/23/12 10:45 AM, Bela Ban wrote: >>> The biggest problem I remember total order having is TM transactions >>> that have other participants (as opposed to cache-only transactions). >>> I haven't followed the TO discussion on the mailing list very closely, >>> does that work now? >> >> No, I don't think that's addressed by TOM, good point in favor of having >> 2 (or more) approaches to partial replication and state transfer ! >> >> > Actually, we already have code for dealing with scenarios in which ISPN > is involved in a distributed transaction with other participants.( Pedro > can point it out, it should be already on github.) The TOB code can be found here [1]. In TransactionCoordinator, it checks if it uses 1 phase or 2 phases. Of course, like Paolo said, it only works for TOB. In TOM, we must have the 2 phases (with write skew check enabled). > > In this case, the solution implies necessarily the usage of 2PC, but we > can disseminate the prepare messages within ISPN using TOM. > > Pro: > - deadlock freedom at the ISPN level, which can contribute to make of > ISPN a well-behaved (i.e. responsive) participant in a distributed > transaction even in high contention scenarios. > > Con: > - in this case we cannot determine right away the outcome of a > transaction once it is TOM-delivered, as we need to take into account > also the votes of external participants. Hence the need for an extra > phase. > [1] https://github.com/pruivo/infinispan/tree/t_to_pedro _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
