On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:55 +0100, Christian Limpach wrote:
> On 9/14/05, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Patch for reading only (I subbed in NULL for the default store page for
> > the moment, since I know there's another patch out there which touches
> > this).
>
> I really don't think that the multi-page approach is good and it's
> also orthogonal, i.e. we could have multiple connections but still
> want concurrent transactions on the same connection. What's wrong
> with concurrent transactions on the same connection?
You're right it's orthogonal, but we really do want separate connections
for each client: they're logically separate, so overloading them on one
transport is going to be a hack. Inside the kernel we do it to a
limited degree, but already have a proxy for handling watches and we
trust everyone to get it right and use One Big Lock.
Now, we still might want concurrent transactions for a single user, but
more likely we want to get rid of the "root of transaction" model
altogether, since noone likes it, and there's an unrelated issue with
NFS-root mounted store (it breaks horribly) that is likely to change our
underlying (on-disk directory-based) implementation. Thoughts?
Rusty.
--
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home