=] yes no lose heehe
the lock_key is per pic, ipnumber_lock
like:
172.16.0.254_lock= 0 or 1 or 2
172.16.0.253_lock= 0 or 1 or 2
172.16.0.252_lock= 0 or 1 or 2
172.16.0.251_lock= 0 or 1 or 2
2011/2/5 dormando dorma...@rydia.net:
for data i use this:
key= pic ip number_fragment
lock key = pic
On 2/3/11 11:40 PM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
LOCK (create a key-value, always return value)
UNLOCK (delete key-value, if key-value=sent(key-value) delete, return
before delete value, if not exist return blank or null)
that's it easy not?
What happens when the server holding the lock value is
How, exactly, does this reduce the cost or increase the performance
of your production app to make this change? How many concurrent locks
are you holding, and what percentage of your total traffic is this?
By how many machines do you estimate you could reduce your memcached
server farm by
On 2/4/2011 9:34 AM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
What happens when the server holding the lock value is rebooted? Or needs to evict
values from memory? For memcache's realpurpose those things don't affect
operation because the client will reload the correct values on the next access.
Where is
i don't see any question to say: it's not a good feature to be implemented
just one thing: my scenario isn't your scenario, i need only one
server, cache timeout isn't a problem, no value in cache isn't a
problem, i just need a simple lock / unlock function, i will make all
app relative
On Feb 4, 8:37 am, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
put at main memcache code, and we can port to others memcache forks,
got the quest?
Our goals are quite far from this. It would be trivial for you to
create an extension in the new engine branch to add lock support if
you feel
i can´t replace PIC, i have more 2.000 unit of PIC here (a lot of
money), after that i can use arm with linux
for now i can just use PIC
ok, no help from forum, i will try to code by my self, if code looks
good could i send to memcache mail list and try to make it 'default'
in source code?
On 2/4/2011 11:25 AM, Dustin wrote:
easy? with it i can have 3 or more send/receive removed from my
pic18f4550 code (save a lot of rom for me)
Are you sure you're not looking for a job server (gearmand,
beanstalkd, etc...)? Perhaps your mistake is in doing any of the
processing on your
nice =]
but it don´t have lock too :/ today i´m using repcache, i never have
problem with lose of information (i´m using a good ups too)
the only problem is the PIC code is consuming a lot of ROM and time
(many network i/o) and i can´t use many PICs in the same time since
the network band is just
I get why you may strike out on your own and write an extension to memcached
that does exactly what you want (kind of, there _are_ better tools, as
mentioned),
that's precisely what open source is about. I do not get why you're so
persistent
about getting changes that the community and maintainers
since all (php, ruby, c and many others) client library are compatible
with memcached, a new function in memcache will be faster reported to
client libraries =), that´s why i want it at memcached, not at
repcache or membase or memcachedb or anyother
it´s a client and server change, it´s not just
On 2/4/2011 11:40 AM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
nice =]
but it don´t have lock too :/
Isn't this a lock?
http://wiki.membase.org/display/membase/getl+extended+operations
I guess it is new and experimental. Then again, yours would be too.
today i´m using repcache, i never have
problem with lose
yes but i will need many network packets to work
first add
second getl
it could work with only one
lock
2011/2/4 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com:
On 2/4/2011 11:40 AM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
nice =]
but it don´t have lock too :/
Isn't this a lock?
ehehe i know that there´s many others lock server,
but i don´t have ROM on my PIC18f4550 to put two libraries =( it would
be nice if i had a ARM or a x86 :/, but i don´t have :(
if i use memcache i could do it with my PIC
2011/2/4 Adam Lee a...@fotolog.biz:
Yes. I'm starting to feel like a
On 2/4/2011 12:40 PM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
ehehe i know that there´s many others lock server,
but i don´t have ROM on my PIC18f4550 to put two libraries =( it would
be nice if i had a ARM or a x86 :/, but i don´t have :(
if i use memcache i could do it with my PIC
Do you already have enough
You don't need two libraries. As I said, a lot of these products already
speak the memcached protocol or, alternatively, something like redis would
provide you all of the functionality that you need from memcached plus the
features that you're requesting (key-value store with replication,
i will learn more about redis, i didn´t see a lock server with cache yet
my today app work today, but it´s not very good/fast (i have a network
bootneck today)
i rewrite to redis protocol is very poor :(
if i can´t do anythink i will try a proxy between memcache and client
and implement lock and
Do you only need the lock in order to do transaction groups? If so, redis
supports those out of the box:
http://rediscookbook.org/pipeline_multiple_commands.html
http://rediscookbook.org/pipeline_multiple_commands.htmlIf, though, you're
actually trying to build locks, check out WATCH:
On 2/4/2011 1:16 PM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
i will learn more about redis, i didn´t see a lock server with cache yet
my today app work today, but it´s not very good/fast (i have a network
bootneck today)
i rewrite to redis protocol is very poor :(
if i can´t do anythink i will try a proxy between
On Feb 4, 9:30 am, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
i can´t replace PIC, i have more 2.000 unit of PIC here (a lot of
money), after that i can use arm with linux
for now i can just use PIC
ok, no help from forum, i will try to code by my self, if code looks
good could i send to
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
On Feb 4, 12:20 pm, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br 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,
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
On 2/4/11 9:56 PM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
problem:
today i need 4 packets to make 'lock'/'unlock' using memcache
i need to use less ROM/CPU/RAM/network at client side
What's the big picture here? If you want your client to do less work, why not
run a web service on the server that not only
i'm trying to separe some cpu use (i know cpu for servers is not a
problem) but since the problem is 'easy' i'm trying to keep logic at
microcontroller, if i port all logic to server, is better to use ARM
or x86 at microcontroller side (i will spend less money - i still with
2000 pic in stock :/ )
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
pic use memcache as a RAM memory
first i lock memcache (with my today lock function)
set a key to 0
i read data from pic, and put at memcache
after 128 writes i put a sum (save this sum at pic internal memory)
total bytes is about 1MB(1048576 bytes) (pic don't have this memory,
it's a ADC read
pic use memcache as a RAM memory
first i lock memcache (with my today lock function)
set a key to 0
i read data from pic, and put at memcache
after 128 writes i put a sum (save this sum at pic internal memory)
total bytes is about 1MB(1048576 bytes) (pic don't have this memory,
it's a ADC
for data i use this:
key= pic ip number_fragment
lock key = pic ip number_lock
Then there's no locking, and multiple PIC's can use memcached in parallel?
yes many pic's in parallel and a app at server side read in multiget all data :)
That sounds like a win/win to me, if gross :)
what's win/win
for data i use this:
key= pic ip number_fragment
lock key = pic ip number_lock
Shouldn't need the lock_key, then?
That sounds like a win/win to me, if gross :)
what's win/win ? hehehe
It's when there's no lose.
LOCK should be something like this:
?php
// type=0 - unlock
// type=1 - lock
// client_name must change (use sessionID + username)
function memcache_flock($memcache_obj,$key,$type=0,$client_name='1',$timeout=0){
$ret=memcache_add($memcache_obj,$key,$client_name,false,$timeout);
Here's one I hacked together a while back, though, as I said before, I
recommend using something better suited to the job... BTW, this thing uses
a few of our utility classes, but it should be very simple to drop in
replacements.
public class GlobalLock
{
public GlobalLock(String lockType,
I'm not sure what you mean that it's client-based. Sure, the logic is on
the client, as a lot of things are with memcached, but the CAS is enforced
by the server. Doesn't seem like it's functionally any different than
adding the same function on the server side, since the client would just be
not identical... if you need less network latency, server side is
better... no doubt...
like CAS we could make a LOCK system (just LOCK/UNLOCK, with timeout,
and just allow change lock/unlock if content of lock = content value
sent on memcache client)
2011/2/3 Adam Lee a...@fotolog.biz:
I'm not
awl
On Feb 3, 2011 11:11 PM, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
not identical... if you need less network latency, server side is
better... no doubt...
like CAS we could make a LOCK system (just LOCK/UNLOCK, with timeout,
and just allow change lock/unlock if content of lock = content
sure, latency would be lower, but i still believe that they would be
functionally identical.
regardless, i believe that this isn't really something that memcached should
do. it gives you the tools necessary to implement it without adding
functionality tangential to its core purpose. if you want
can anyone make it at server side? i don't know anything about server
side source code (yet)
2011/2/4 Adam Lee a...@fotolog.biz:
awl
On Feb 3, 2011 11:11 PM, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
not identical... if you need less network latency, server side is
better... no doubt...
i agree with client built into it
but let's think memcached like a nosql server
key-value
but like a sql server we can implement locks
with a key-value like we can implement locks...
it's just a function over existent structure, don't need modifications
and it's (memcached) very fast
i think for a
On Feb 3, 9:29 pm, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
can anyone make it at server side? i don't know anything about server
side source code (yet)
How, exactly, does this reduce the cost or increase the performance
of your production app to make this change? How many concurrent
On Feb 3, 9:40 pm, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.br wrote:
but like a sql server we can implement locks
with a key-value like we can implement locks...
There's no facility in memcached to create a reliable lock.
You can't store anything you ever expect to get back.
with these three
nice (repcache and memcachedb work well...)
is the lock daemon generic? (not filesystem based)
2011/1/29 Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com:
On Jan 28, 9:39 pm, rspadim rspa...@gmail.com wrote:
hi guys, there's a async replication project (repcached) that is very
interesting, could we implement it in
hi guys, there's a async replication project (repcached) that is very
interesting, could we implement it in main source code? at compile
time we could select from repcached or memcached
could we make it sync and/or async?
http://repcached.sourceforge.net/
On Jan 28, 9:39 pm, rspadim rspa...@gmail.com wrote:
hi guys, there's a async replication project (repcached) that is very
interesting, could we implement it in main source code? at compile
time we could select from repcached or memcached
could we make it sync and/or
43 matches
Mail list logo
