From: Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Memory mapping and network file systems (Was: B-tree performance)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 03:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2013-09-05T03:12:01-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4362f3e7-ea19-4054-84e2-33e87a1bb572@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87txhzu13v.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 10:25:08 UTC+2, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>> > If the persistent objects are shadowed in RAM disc and that's shared
> > over a network, it can make the solution nicely scalable across
> > multiple networked machines.
>
> That sounds rather dangerous to me. I would expect either very low
> performance or lots of data corruption.
> -- Robert I. Eachus
>
So would I. Unless, as is the case, triplestores are more read than written, so only one process needs to write, removing the main source of corruption and removing the need to do lots of locking.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-05 10:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-31 7:14 B-tree performance Peter Brooks
2013-08-31 15:26 ` Shark8
2013-08-31 15:47 ` Peter Brooks
2013-09-01 4:57 ` Niklas Holsti
2013-09-01 6:05 ` Peter Brooks
2013-09-01 8:05 ` Niklas Holsti
2013-09-01 8:38 ` Peter Brooks
2013-09-02 4:28 ` Niklas Holsti
2013-09-03 2:15 ` Peter Brooks
2013-09-05 8:25 ` Memory mapping and network file systems (Was: B-tree performance) Jacob Sparre Andersen
2013-09-05 10:12 ` Peter Brooks [this message]
2013-09-03 16:14 ` B-tree performance Dan'l Miller
2013-09-03 17:43 ` Peter Brooks
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox