Search Results

Search found 1137 results on 46 pages for 'optimistic locking'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 13/46 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Does add() on LinkedBlockingQueue notify waiting threads?

    - by obvio171
    I have a consumer thread taking elements from a LinkedBlockingQueue, and I make it sleep manually when it's empty. I use peek() to see if the queue empty because I have to do stuff because sending the thread to sleep, and I do that with queue.wait(). So, when I'm in another thread and add()an element to the queue, does that automatically notify the thread that was wait()ing on the queue?

    Read the article

  • Limiting the number of threads executing a method at a single time.

    - by Steve_
    We have a situation where we want to limit the number of paralell requests our application can make to its application server. We have potentially 100+ background threads running that will want to at some point make a call to the application server but only want 5 threads to be able to call SendMessage() (or whatever the method will be) at any one time. What is the best way of achieving this? I have considered using some sort of gatekeeper object that blocks threads coming into the method until the number of threads executing in it has dropped below the threshold. Would this be a reasonable solution or am I overlooking the fact that this might be dirty/dangerous? We are developing in C#.NET 3.5. Thanks, Steve

    Read the article

  • MySQL Inserting into locked aliased table

    - by Whitey
    I am trying to insert data into a InnoDB MySQL table which is locked using an alias and I cannot for the life of me get it to work! The following works: LOCK TABLES Problems p1 WRITE, Problems p2 WRITE, Server READ; SELECT * FROM Problems p1; UNLOCK TABLES; But try and do an insert and it doesn't work (it claims there is a syntax error round the 'p1' in my INSERT): LOCK TABLES Problems p1 WRITE, Problems p2 WRITE, Server READ; INSERT INTO Problems p1 (SomeCol) VALUES(43534); UNLOCK TABLES; Help please!

    Read the article

  • How to synchronize threads in python?

    - by Eric
    I have two threads in python (2.7). I start them at the beginning of my program. While they execute, my program reaches the end and exits, killing both of my threads before waiting for resolution. I'm trying to figure out how to wait for both threads to finish before exiting. def connect_cam(ip, execute_lock): try: conn = TelnetConnection.TelnetClient(ip) execute_lock.acquire() ExecuteUpdate(conn, ip) execute_lock.release() except ValueError: pass execute_lock = thread.allocate_lock() thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( headset_ip, execute_lock ) ) thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( handcam_ip, execute_lock ) ) In .NET I would use something like WaitAll() but I haven't found the equivalent in python. In my scenario, TelnetClient is a long operation which may result in a failure after a timeout.

    Read the article

  • What data is actually stored in a B-tree database in CouchDB?

    - by Andrey Vlasovskikh
    I'm wondering what is actually stored in a CouchDB database B-tree? The CouchDB: The Definitive Guide tells that a database B-tree is used for append-only operations and that a database is stored in a single B-tree (besides per-view B-trees). So I guess the data items that are appended to the database file are revisions of documents, not the whole documents: +---------|### ... | | +------|###|------+ ... ---+ | | | | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | doc1 | | doc2 | | doc1 | ... | doc1 | | rev1 | | rev1 | | rev2 | | rev7 | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ Is it true? If it is true, then how the current revision of a document is determined based on such a B-tree? Doesn't it mean, that CouchDB needs a separate "view" database for indexing current revisions of documents to preserve O(log n) access? Wouldn't it lead to race conditions while building such an index? (as far as I know, CouchDB uses no write locks).

    Read the article

  • SQL Server race condition issue with range lock

    - by Freek
    I'm implementing a queue in SQL Server (please no discussions about this) and am running into a race condition issue. The T-SQL of interest is the following: set transaction isolation level serializable begin tran declare @RecordId int declare @CurrentTS datetime2 set @CurrentTS=CURRENT_TIMESTAMP select top 1 @RecordId=Id from QueuedImportJobs with (updlock) where Status=@Status and (LeaseTimeout is null or @CurrentTS>LeaseTimeout) order by Id asc if @@ROWCOUNT> 0 begin update QueuedImportJobs set LeaseTimeout = DATEADD(mi,5,@CurrentTS), LeaseTicket=newid() where Id=@RecordId select * from QueuedImportJobs where Id = @RecordId end commit tran RecordId is the PK and there is also an index on Status,LeaseTimeout. What I'm basically doing is select a record of which the lease happens to be expired, while simultaneously updating the lease time with 5 minutes and setting a new lease ticket. So the problem is that I'm getting deadlocks when I run this code in parallel using a couple of threads. I've debugged it up to the point where I found out that the update statement sometimes gets executing twice for the same record. Now, I was under the impression that the with (updlock) should prevent this (it also happens with xlock btw, not with tablockx). So it actually look like there is a RangeS-U and a RangeX-X lock on the same range of records, which ought to be impossible. So what am I missing? I'm thinking it might have something to do with the top 1 clause or that SQL Server does not know that where Id=@RecordId is actually in the locked range? Deadlock graph: Table schema (simplified):

    Read the article

  • cflock do not throw timeout for same url called in same browser

    - by Pritesh Patel
    I am trying lock block on page test.cfm and below is code written on page. <cfscript> writeOutput("Before lock at #now()#"); lock name="threadlock" timeout="3" type="exclusive" { writeOutput("<br/>started at #now()#"); thread action="sleep" duration="10000"; writeOutput("<br/>ended at #now()#"); } writeOutput("<br/>After lock at #now()#"); </cfscript> assuming my url for page is http://localhost.local/test.cfm and running it on browser in two different tabs. I was expecting one of the url will throw timeout error after 3 second since another url lock it atleast for 10 seconds due to thread sleep. Surprisingly I do not get any timeout error rather second page call run after 10 seconds as first call finish execution. But I am appending some url parameter (e.g. http://localhost.local/test.cfm?q=1) will throw error. Also I am calling same url in different browser then one of the call will throw timeout issue. Is lock based on session and url? Update Here is output for two different cases: Case 1: TAB1 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:35'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:35'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} TAB2 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:55'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:55'} Case 2: TAB1 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:18'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:18'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:28'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:28'} TAB2 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm? (Added ? at the end) Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:20'} A timeout occurred while attempting to lock threadlock. The error occurred in C:/inetpub/wwwroot/test/test.cfm: line 13 11 : 12 : <cfoutput>Before lock at #now()#</cfoutput> 13 : <cflock name="threadlock" timeout="3" type="exclusive"> 14 : <cfoutput><br/>started at #now()#</cfoutput> 15 : <cfthread action="sleep" duration="10000"/> ... Result for case 2 as expected. For case 1, strange thing I just noticed is tab 2 output "Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} indicates that whole request start after 10 seconds (means after the complete execution of first tab) when I have fired it in second URL just after 2 seconds of first tabs.

    Read the article

  • How do I can linux flock command to prevent another root process deleting a file?

    - by Danmaxis
    Hello there, I would like to prevent one of my root process from deleting a certaing file. So I came across the flock command, it seems to fit my need, but I didnt get its sintax. If I only indicate a shared lock, it doesnt work: flock -s "./file.xml" If I add a timeout parameter, it still doesnt work flock -s -w5 "./file.xml" It seems that way, it fits in flock [-sxun][-w #] fd# way. (What is this fd# parameter?) So, I tried the flock [-sxon][-w #] file [-c] command Using flock -s -w5 "./file.xml" -c "tail -3 ./file.xml" and it worked, tail command at ./file.xml was executed. But I would like to know, does the lock end after the command or does it last 5 seconds after the end of the command execution? My main question is, how can I prevent another root process deleting a file in linux?

    Read the article

  • Can the lock function be used to implement thread-safe enumeration?

    - by Daniel
    I'm working on a thread-safe collection that uses Dictionary as a backing store. In C# you can do the following: private IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<K, V>> Enumerate() { if (_synchronize) { lock (_locker) { foreach (var entry in _dict) yield return entry; } } else { foreach (var entry in _dict) yield return entry; } } The only way I've found to do this in F# is using Monitor, e.g.: let enumerate() = if synchronize then seq { System.Threading.Monitor.Enter(locker) try for entry in dict -> entry finally System.Threading.Monitor.Exit(locker) } else seq { for entry in dict -> entry } Can this be done using the lock function? Or, is there a better way to do this in general? I don't think returning a copy of the collection for iteration will work because I need absolute synchronization.

    Read the article

  • Mysql- "FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK" started automatically

    - by ming yeow
    I would like to understand how this happened. I was running a query that would take a long time, but should not lock up any table. However, my dbs were practically down - it seems like it was being locked up by "FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK" 03:21:31 select type_id, count(*) from guid_target_infos group by type_id 02:38:11 select type_id, count(*) from guid_infos group by type_id 02:24:29 FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK But i did not start this command. can someone tell me why it was started automatically?

    Read the article

  • How Indices Cope with MVCC ?

    - by geeko
    Greetings Overflowers, To my understanding (and I hope I'm not right) changes to indices cannot be MVCCed. I'm wondering if this is also true with big records as copies can be costly. Since records are accessed via indices (usually), how MVCC can be effective ? Do, for e.g., indices keep track of different versions of MVCCed records ? Any recent good reading on this subject ? Really appreciated ! Regards

    Read the article

  • Do really need a count lock on Multi threads with one CPU core?

    - by MrROY
    If i have some code looks like this(Please ignore the syntax, i want to understand it without a specified language): count = 0 def countDown(): count += 1 if __name__ == '__main__': thread1(countDown) thread2(countDown) thread3(countDown) Here i have a CPU with only one core, do i really need a lock to the variable count in case of it could be over-written by other threads. I don't know, but if the language cares a lot, please explain it under Java?C and Python, So many thanks.

    Read the article

  • how can we achieve second application read that file when first application not modifying it

    - by soField
    i have two application first application is bash second is java which one of them is periodically deleting and recreating a specific file (first) the other one is also periodically reading this file and process it in it's own logic (second) how can we achieve second application read that file when first application not modifying it my aim is to force second app read the file only when content of file fully written inside it how can achieve this goal ?

    Read the article

  • Multi-threading concept and lock in c#

    - by Neeraj
    I read about lock, though not understood nothing at all. My question is why do we use a un-used object and lock that and how this makes something thread-safe or how this helps in multi-threading ? Isn't there other way to make thread-safe code. public class test { private object Lock { get; set; } ... lock (this.Lock) { ... } ... } Sorry is my question is very stupid, but i don't understand, although i've used it many times.

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Do I need to syncronize thread access to an int

    - by Martin Harris
    I've just written a method that is called by multiple threads simultaneously and I need to keep track of when all the threads have completed, the code uses this pattern: private void RunReport() { _reportsRunning++; try { //code to run the report } finally { _reportsRunning--; } } This is the only place within the code that _reportsRunning's value is changed, and the method takes about a second to run. Occasionally when I have more than six or so threads running reports together the final result for _reportsRunning can get down to -1, if I wrap the calls to _runningReports++ and _runningReports-- in a lock then the behaviour appears to be correct and consistant. So, to the question: When I was learning multithreading in C++ I was taught that you didn't need to synchronize calls to increment and decrement operations because they were always one assembly instruction and therefore it was impossible for the thread to be switched out mid-call. Was I taught correctly, and if so how come that doesn't hold true for C#?

    Read the article

  • Can I lock rows in a cursor if the cursor only returns a single count(*) row?

    - by RenderIn
    I would like to restrict users from inserting more than 3 records with color = 'Red' in my FOO table. My intentions are to A) retrieve the current count so that I can determine whether another record is allowed and B) prevent any other processes from inserting any Red records while this one is in process, hence the for update of. I'd like to do something like: cursor cur_cnt is select count(*) cnt from foo where foo.color = 'Red' for update of foo.id; Will this satisfy both my requirements or will it not lock only the rows in the count(*) who had foo.color = 'Red'?

    Read the article

  • detection of 'flush tables with read lock' in php

    - by theduke0
    I would like to know from my application if a myisam table can accept writes (i.e. not locked). If an exception is thrown, everything is fine as I can catch this and log the failed statement to a file. However, if a 'flush tables with read lock' command has been issued (possibly for backup), the query I send will pretty much hang out forever. If one table is locked at a time, insert delayed works well. But when this global lock is applied, my query just waits. The query I run is an insert statement. If this statement fails or hangs, user experience is degraded. I need a way to send the query to the server and forget about it (pretty much). Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? -set a query timeout? -run asyncronous request and allow for the lock to expire while application continues? -fork my php process? Please let me know if I can provide and clarification or details.

    Read the article

  • Thread-Safe lazy instantiating using MEF

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private static readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { // It seems the `IsValueCreated` is not up-to-date if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile static int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. I should notice the CompositionContainer has a thread-safe option in constructor which is already used. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for avoiding locks on a heavily read table?

    - by Luiggi
    Hi, I have a big database (~4GB), with 2 large tables (~3M records) having ~180K SELECTs/hour, ~2k UPDATEs/hour and ~1k INSERTs+DELETEs/hour. What would be the best practice to guarantee no locks for the reading tasks while inserting/updating/deleting? I was thinking about using a NOLOCK hint, but there is so much discussed about this (is good, is bad, it depends) that I'm a bit lost. I must say I've tried this in a dev environment and I didn't find any problems, but I don't want to put it on production until I get some feedback... Thank you! Luiggi

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >