-Original Message-
From: Vlad Khorsun [mailto:hv...@users.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Lunes, 09 de Mayo de 2011 6:07
To avoid contention on common dbb_pool its usage was
replaced by att_pool when
possible. To make this task slightly easy there was
introduced
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Khorsun [mailto:hv...@users.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Lunes, 09 de Mayo de 2011 6:07
To avoid contention on common dbb_pool its usage was
replaced by att_pool when
possible. To make this task slightly easy there was
introduced
09.05.2011 14:06, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
All metadata objects moved into Attachment. Metadata syncronization is guarded
by attachment's mutex now. Database::SyncGuard and company are replaced by
corresponding Attachment::XXX classes.
To make AST's work we need to release attachment mutex
All metadata objects moved into Attachment. Metadata syncronization is
guarded
by attachment's mutex now. Database::SyncGuard and company are replaced by
corresponding Attachment::XXX classes.
To make AST's work we need to release attachment mutex sometimes. This is
very
important change
10.05.2011 9:40, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
As long as it
keeps launching one process per connection, there's no difference
between SharedCache being true or false, as there will always be only
one Database/Attachment pair per process.
Sure
Isn't the cache shared between processes?
--
In this case may I suggest to use separate memory pool for the cache's
elements?..
It is already separate
Someday someone could implement shared memory pool...
It is already shared ;)
Regards,
Vlad
--
Are there any database-level ASTs known to implicitly access the
attachments? When should they lock the appropriate mutex?
Database-level ASTs not need to access attachment internals usually.
Usually differs from always :-) I seem to remember cases when the
AST saves lck_attachment into
On 05/09/11 21:15, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
09.05.2011 18:48, Leyne, Sean wrote:
I disagree. Shadow is the only method for synchronous replication in
Firebird now.
Synchronous replication on a single server is not replication.
Don't forget about NFS and iSCSI(?).
Why _only_ NFS?
On 05/09/11 14:06, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
To run SuperClassic you should use switch -m in command line of
firebird.exe
(on Windows) or run fb_smp_server (on Posix, here i'm not sure and Alex will
correct me)
Small correction. There is no more fb_smp_server on posix. There is also
single
Vlad,
After more than a year of development, testing, switching on another
tasks and returning back i'm ready to commit shared page cache
implementation into trunk.
Great news!
...
About stability testing of different parts of the engine :
...
- shadow - not tested
I would like
09.05.2011 18:27, Leyne, Sean wrote:
- shadow - not tested
I would like to propose that support for database Shadow be completely
dropped in v3
I disagree. Shadow is the only method for synchronous replication in
Firebird now.
Before of dropping it, a replacement should be proposed.
--
Being able to spread a database across multiple files is a great
feature when moving large databases on devices that do not support
large file support - such as 32GB thumb drives that still use a form
of FAT32 for their file system.Sure we can format them up with a
different filing system but
09.05.2011 18:48, Leyne, Sean wrote:
I disagree. Shadow is the only method for synchronous replication in
Firebird now.
Synchronous replication on a single server is not replication.
Don't forget about NFS and iSCSI(?).
--
SY, SD.
09.05.2011 18:48, Leyne, Sean wrote:
I disagree. Shadow is the only method for synchronous replication
in Firebird now.
Synchronous replication on a single server is not replication.
Don't forget about NFS and iSCSI(?).
Shadow was designed as an early software RAID solution,
1 - you are still using a Win98 system and so NTFS isn't supported???
NTFS is not supported on some forms of solaris, linux and other OS's
we have in the office - windows is not the only operating system on
the market and many standalone devices only support the win98/fat32
formats due to MS
1 - you are still using a Win98 system and so NTFS isn't supported???
NTFS is not supported on some forms of solaris, linux and other OS's we have
in the office - windows is not the only operating system on the market and
many standalone devices only support the win98/fat32 formats due to
16 matches
Mail list logo
