4 ms·
To hell with fsync(), I'd want a proper commit()! ;) The performance is so high that the assumptions that had led to the old file system interfaces don't apply
by Findecanor 3y ago
To hell with fsync(), I'd want a proper commit()! ;)
The performance is so high that the assumptions that had led to the old file system interfaces don't apply any more. There is opportunity for something better.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoSorry, what is commit() here?
- pmontra 3y agoMaybe begin() try { work on several in memory data structures commit() } catch { rollback() } And all those data structures are either collectively updated or not.
- danbruc 3y agoTransactional memory [1], there are existing hardware and software implementations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_memory
- yencabulator 3y agoNone of which seem to perform well in the real world when you measure anything but CS papers published...
- foobiekr 3y agoThere are software transactional memories for nearly all programming languages. A project I worked on, shipping since the mid 2000s, uses an in memory STM for nearly all operations.