On 06/28/2010 02:10 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
Well, yeah... I guess I was too lazy and reluctant to create yet
another state machine for this. Maybe I should just bite the bullet
and make tabled fully multi-threaded. It was likely to come next
anyway since you complained about the abysmal performan
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:37:51 -0400
Jeff Darcy wrote:
> First, it seems like trying to do stuff "under" BDB replication, letting
> them control the flow, is proving to be rather painful - over a thousand
> lines in metarep.c plus other bits elsewhere, all constrained by their
> expectations wrt bl
On 06/24/2010 08:31 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> I worked on fixing the metadata replication in tabled. There were some
> difficulties in existing code, in particular the aliasing between the
> hostname used to identify nodes and the hostname used in bind() for
> listening was imposs
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:26:05 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 06/24/2010 08:31 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > We essentially have a tabled that can really be considered as replicated.
> > Before, it was only data replication, which was great and all but
> > useless against disk failues in the tabled's
On 06/24/2010 08:31 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
I worked on fixing the metadata replication in tabled. There were some
difficulties in existing code, in particular the aliasing between the
hostname used to identify nodes and the hostname used in bind() for
listening was impossible to work around in
