Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Clojure
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion STM criticism from Azul Systems
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Randall R Schulz  
View profile  
 More options May 23 2008, 1:29 pm
From: Randall R Schulz <rsch...@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:29:07 -0700
Local: Fri, May 23 2008 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: STM criticism from Azul Systems
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Friday 23 May 2008 10:14, MikeM wrote:

> I found the following comment on an Azul Systems blog (http://

> blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2008/05/javaone.html) :
> >Performance in an STM is not transparent: it requires a runtime to
> > do abort/retry, and as the >runtimes get fancy & complex the
> > behavior under load of STM's gets.... weird and >unpredictable. Not
> > something you can put into a production environment.

> Any comments or counter-examples to this?

Are explicit locking designs free from such anomalies? I wouldn't think
so.

Randall Schulz


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google