Subject | Re: [IB-Architect] Classic vs SuperServer was IB/FB Lock manager failures |
---|---|
Author | Paul Schmidt |
Post date | 2002-09-25T22:26:04Z |
On 24 Sep 2002 at 16:40, Dalton Calford wrote:
consider the cluster as being one big SMP type machine, and allow 3 threads to
work on three separate members of the cluster? In other words, is there still a
reason for a multi-process version of the engine to exist?
Paul Schmidt, President
Tricat Technologies
paul@...
www.tricattechnologies.com
> Curiosity,The trick is, do modern clusters (like Beowulf) need separate processes, or do they
>
> Currently, superserver starts with the machine and only one copy runs,
> regardless of the number of databases on the machine, while classic
> starts at the time of connection, and again, runs a copy, ignoring the
> number of databases on the machine.
>
> What about a architecture that spawns like classic on the first
> connect to a database, operates like superserver (handling all future
> connections) and stays open until the last connection drops.
>
> The immediate benefits are
>
> 1) if you are developing test code on one database and kill the server
> process, you will not kill the process for other users 2) the first
> process spawned would put a physical lock on the file (limited by
> OS/filesystem structure) and if another process attempts to connect
> with a different path, a different SS process would start, try to open
> the file and fail due to the initial lock - this would be a way of
> preventing some of the corruption caused by invalid paths. 3) on
> multi-processor systems, you could specify the cpu the SS process per
> database would operate - this would give some benefits of multi-cpu
> threading.
>
> future design benefits may include
>
> a) the classic and superserver codebase to unify once again so it is a
> single offering b) shared disk/memory locking to allow for SS on
> clustered computing platforms c) short term patch until the code base
> is re-written to have the granularity needed for a SMP system.
>
> I agree with Ann in that having two diverging code/implementation
> paths is a death knell for the project, my suggestion is to merge both
> versus dropping one over the other......
consider the cluster as being one big SMP type machine, and allow 3 threads to
work on three separate members of the cluster? In other words, is there still a
reason for a multi-process version of the engine to exist?
Paul Schmidt, President
Tricat Technologies
paul@...
www.tricattechnologies.com