Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #1605
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Lockfreee algorithms... |
| Date | 2013-06-21 14:24 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <kq2gb1$8v9$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <kq2dje$dc7$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
> "aminer" wrote in message news:kq2dje$dc7$1@dont-email.me... The problem > is worse with lockfree algorithms , i said > before that they can higher the contention, and they can > be slow when there is more retries, Hence lockfree algorithms > are not perfectly scalable, and more than that read the > following: IMVHO, this is total non-sense. You say a distributed rwmutex is better than lock-free; see the problem here? What about distributed lock-free... Anyway, you seem to think as if locking protocols are the only thing that can be engineered to scale. ;^/
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Lockfreee algorithms... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-21 14:24 -0700 Re: Lockfreee algorithms... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-06-21 22:03 -0700
csiph-web