On Friday 07 Sep 2012 00:43:44 postwall-free...@yahoo.de wrote:
Freetalk and WoT may be better designed on that level. However they
produce more disk I/O. And the reason for this is, mainstream database
practice and theory are designed for two cases:
1. Lots of data (absolute amount and
Dienstag, 4.September 2012
Betreff: Re: [freenet-dev] Disk I/O thread
On Sunday 02 Sep 2012 17:51:49 xor wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2012 00:40:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Sadly Freetalk/WoT do use rollback so has to
commit EVERY TIME.
I oppose to the sadly. Transaction-based programming has
On Sunday 02 Sep 2012 17:51:49 xor wrote:
> On Thursday 30 August 2012 00:40:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Sadly Freetalk/WoT do use rollback so has to
> > commit EVERY TIME.
>
> I oppose to the "sadly". Transaction-based programming has proven to be a
> valid approach to solve many issues of
On Sunday 02 Sep 2012 17:51:49 xor wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2012 00:40:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Sadly Freetalk/WoT do use rollback so has to
commit EVERY TIME.
I oppose to the sadly. Transaction-based programming has proven to be a
valid approach to solve many issues of
On Thursday 30 August 2012 00:40:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Sadly Freetalk/WoT do use rollback so has to
> commit EVERY TIME.
I oppose to the "sadly". Transaction-based programming has proven to be a
valid approach to solve many issues of traditional "manually undo everything
upon
On Thursday 30 August 2012 00:40:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Sadly Freetalk/WoT do use rollback so has to
commit EVERY TIME.
I oppose to the sadly. Transaction-based programming has proven to be a
valid approach to solve many issues of traditional manually undo everything
upon
Response to a long thread on FMS about how to reduce Freenet's disk I/O, what
are realistic system requirements, when can we expect to see SSDs taking over,
and will Freenet kill commodity disks as a matter of routine.
