local_cache seems broken
2 views
Skip to first unread message
JP
Mar 11, 2009, 3:56:13 PM3/11/09
to LightCloud
Hi,
I just started looking at lightcloud. It looks very interesting and
benchmarks well, but local_cache seems like a design flaw. I don't see
how to avoid the following:
host A sets key "a" to "a"
host B gets key "a", sets local cache of "a" to "a"
host A sets key "a" to "b"
host B gets key "a" -- still gets the old value "a" because setting on
host B doesn't invalidate host A's cache
(Or they could even be separate threads on the same host, since
local_cache is a thread local).
With local_cache in the mix, I can't see how an update would be seen
by all clients. Am I missing something?
JP
I just started looking at lightcloud. It looks very interesting and
benchmarks well, but local_cache seems like a design flaw. I don't see
how to avoid the following:
host A sets key "a" to "a"
host B gets key "a", sets local cache of "a" to "a"
host A sets key "a" to "b"
host B gets key "a" -- still gets the old value "a" because setting on
host B doesn't invalidate host A's cache
(Or they could even be separate threads on the same host, since
local_cache is a thread local).
With local_cache in the mix, I can't see how an update would be seen
by all clients. Am I missing something?
JP
amix
Mar 13, 2009, 5:47:17 AM3/13/09
to light...@googlegroups.com
Hi JP
I'll make the local cache optional. You are right this is a problem if one wants to have 100% consistency across a network of servers.
Regards,
Amir
2009/3/11 JP <jpel...@gmail.com>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages