I know for sure that IBM's GPFS guarantees locking. I think GPFS is "global parallel file system". It is a distributed file system. But it will be rather slow. If only few jobs run in parallel, all will be ok. Locking will always guarantee database integrity.
With lots of jobs, you will see you have to increase sqlite timeouts to hours. Waiting for a lock will be much longer than transaction, obviously. If transaction takes 1 second, with 1000 jobs, you will need timeout of 1000 seconds. But locking adds very large overhead. Timeout will have to be 2 or 3 times that. If GPFS is loaded by other jobs (from other users, not even sqlite users) the wait times will increase. Roman Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> Date: 10/16/19 12:51 AM (GMT-05:00) To: SQLite mailing list <sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Network file system that support sqlite3 well On 15 Oct 2019, at 11:47pm, Peng Yu <pengyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a solution that are known to fill in this niche? Thanks. Unfortunately, no. Multiuser SQLite depends on locking being implemented correctly. The developers haven't found any Network File Systems which do this. Unless one of the readers of this list wants to tell me otherwise. Jens' post suggesting that you use a proper client/server database system is my only solution. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailinglists.sqlite.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsqlite-users&data=02%7C01%7Croman.fleysher%40einstein.yu.edu%7C8e768b55426246b957cb08d751f481a2%7C04c70eb48f2648079934e02e89266ad0%7C1%7C1%7C637067982900220847&sdata=PXmUPthCG64C1kmJ1RmTySnsYV1GCaaz1LIoO7g3cQU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users