problem:
today i need 4 packets to make 'lock'/'unlock' using memcache
i need to use less ROM/CPU/RAM/network at client side

solution:
1) make server side lock function with 2 packet (with atomic operations)
2) make a proxy if function = lock/unlock, proxy make these packets to
server (i don't have atomic here, but i can implement with a big work
on protocol, maybe a new memcached hehe)

i will try the second one without atomic (today i'm using it, i have
some problems, but client side workaround it with more packets...
(retry) )
the first is better (i don't need a proxy, i have less packets, use
less cpu, ram, rom, time)

packets:
LOCK
add value (1 packet sent by client, 1 packet sent by server)
if no error (end here)
if value exist
read value (1packet sent by client, 1 packet sent by server)
if value=my value (my lock) if not (not my lock)

UNLOCK
read value (1packet sent by client, 1 packet sent by server)
if value != my value
(end here)
delete value (1packet sent by client, 1 packet sent by server)
(end here)


2011/2/5 Dustin <[email protected]>:
>
> On Feb 4, 12:20 pm, Roberto Spadim <[email protected]> wrote:
>> it´s not the case, i will study redis maybe a protocol change can
>> solve the problem
>> lock is just for computer world
>> it´s a mix of pic(gpio + logic) and computer
>> it´s work very well, to problem is pic have low cpu memory and rom, in
>> future i will change to ARM/x86
>> i will try other solution maybe a proxy between memcache and pic with
>> lock unlock function
>
>  While you haven't described your exact problem enough for anyone to
> offer a reasonable solution, what you've described doesn't sound like
> a problem that you can solve by swapping out a KV cache with a KV
> store.
>
>  I'd guess the easiest thing to do is to actually move the logic into
> the server via a job queue.  If you don't think this will *greatly*
> simplify your program and make it considerably faster, more reliable,
> easier to maintain and solve all of your problems, then please
> describe your problems as well as you've described your proposed
> solutions.



-- 
Roberto Spadim
Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial

Reply via email to