On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:31:52 AM UTC-4, Dormando wrote: > > > > > > > > I'll need to check more carefully. If that's true, the tests should show > > data corruption (and they did a few times during development). Take a > look > > at the tests for the chunked item support? > > > > IE: If I allocate a new page to a slab class, the sequential bytes get > > chopped up into a linked list. The first item chunk of a fresh boot will > > naturally get linked to the next contiguous chunk of memory. > > > > So if you boot up a new server, write a random pattern, and the first > > chunk is offset, it should overwrite the header of the next one if what > > you said is true. That should leave to a crash, or incorrect results, or > > etc. A few bytes of the chunk can be shifted due to alignment but being > > off by an entire header is tougher. > > > > I also ran the code in a 12 hour torture test > > setting/unsetting/overwriting while moving slab classes at the same > time. > > > > but yes, it's written as a layer violation. my intent was to come back > the > > week after and refactor it more cleanly but I haven't done that yet. > I'll > > try to look at this soon but I have a few pressing bugs to cut a release > > for. > > That all said; are you looking into a particular bug or weirdness or > anything? What's gotten you into this? > > Oh, I was just reading memcached for fun :) I have been using memcached for multiple projects, never really got time to take a look at the implementations.
> -Dormando > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
