Philip Martin writes:
> I've been thinking about this overnight and I believe I need to do more
> investigation on the WANdisco side.
I now realise I was mistaken about this problem. The fact that we don't
fsync during a transaction doesn't affect Apache restarts. When Apache
acknowledges an h
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 23:13:27 +:
>> Branko Čibej writes:
>>
>> > In other words, use a proper crash-resistant transaction commit
>> > sequence, with automatic rollback as necessary. See the sqlite docs for
>> > a description of one way of doing
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 23:13:27 +:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
> > In other words, use a proper crash-resistant transaction commit
> > sequence, with automatic rollback as necessary. See the sqlite docs for
> > a description of one way of doing this. :)
>
> Possibly. But t
Branko Čibej writes:
> On 17.02.2011 00:13, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Branko Čibej writes:
>>
>>> In other words, use a proper crash-resistant transaction commit
>>> sequence, with automatic rollback as necessary. See the sqlite docs for
>>> a description of one way of doing this. :)
>> Possibly.
On 17.02.2011 00:13, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> In other words, use a proper crash-resistant transaction commit
>> sequence, with automatic rollback as necessary. See the sqlite docs for
>> a description of one way of doing this. :)
> Possibly. But that probably introduces a
Branko Čibej writes:
> In other words, use a proper crash-resistant transaction commit
> sequence, with automatic rollback as necessary. See the sqlite docs for
> a description of one way of doing this. :)
Possibly. But that probably introduces an overhead that is entirely
pointless in most cas
On 16.02.2011 23:56, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 02:15 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Blair Zajac writes:
>>
>>> On 02/16/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
So if the timing is just right it's possible for one Apache process to
start writing the transaction, for that process to stop
On 02/16/2011 02:15 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
Blair Zajac writes:
On 02/16/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
So if the timing is just right it's possible for one Apache process to
start writing the transaction, for that process to stop, and for another
process to take over the commit. WANdi
On 16.02.2011 23:15, Philip Martin wrote:
> Blair Zajac writes:
>
>> On 02/16/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>>> So if the timing is just right it's possible for one Apache process to
>>> start writing the transaction, for that process to stop, and for another
>>> process to take over the com
Blair Zajac writes:
> On 02/16/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> So if the timing is just right it's possible for one Apache process to
>> start writing the transaction, for that process to stop, and for another
>> process to take over the commit. WANdisco observed problems on FSFS
>> where
On 02/16/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
So if the timing is just right it's possible for one Apache process to
start writing the transaction, for that process to stop, and for another
process to take over the commit. WANdisco observed problems on FSFS
where the transaction is synced at the
11 matches
Mail list logo
