Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 25 Mar 2010 15:11 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23s1hY%23CzKHA.2644(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> How else can fault tolerance be provided without >> persistent storage? > > About 1 million dollars! > > -- > HLS I think that you are at fault there, but, I will tolerate it.
From: Peter Olcott on 25 Mar 2010 15:22 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%234edFDDzKHA.4492(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >> The whole process has to be as fault tolerant as >> possible, and fault tolerance requires some sort of >> persistent storage. > > There you go again, you read a new buzz word and now you > are fixated with it and further add to you NEVER finishing > this vapor ware product and project anyway. > > -- > HLS That is the sort of response that I would expect from someone that did not know the answer.
From: Peter Olcott on 25 Mar 2010 15:29 "Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:eAZSFJEzKHA.404(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:aLadnYhyYOIk6jbWnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Can you provide any other basis for maximizing fault >> tolerance that does not require some sort of persistent >> storage? > > Clustering or redundancy... > > -Pete > When I speak of fault tolerance and I talking about yanking the power code at any point during execution. I don't see how Clustering or redundancy could recover from this. There are many other cases where clustering and redundancy would make a system more fault tolerant, but, not on a transaction by transaction basis.
From: Peter Olcott on 25 Mar 2010 15:32 "Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:ORrRkLEzKHA.928(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:EqmdnZkWypVi7DbWnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> (By fault tolerance I mean yank the power plug from the >> wall and when the machine is re-started it (as much as >> possible) picks up right where it left off) > > ...take a look at transactional NTFS. > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365738(VS.85).aspx > > -Pete > Which I bet requires some sort of persistent storage, yup it does. How could I have very fast inter process communication that is also fault tolerant, or are these two mutually exclusive?
From: Hector Santos on 25 Mar 2010 15:36
Peter Olcott wrote: >> **** >> And what did you miss about "scalability"? Oh, that;s >> right, you will just throw more >> hardware at it. And rely on your ISP to provide >> load-balancing. Have you talked to them >> about how they do load-balancing when you have multiple >> servers? >> joe > > My whole focus was to leverage memory to gain speed. Great, we all do, but you have to work within the environment you have by using proper OS programming technology that is offered to do get the best leverage you can. Please take the take to read this short article, as it really tries to hit what 4GB per process really means even with 10000000 GB machines. http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2004/02/19/the-4gb-windows-memory-limit-what-does-it-really-mean.aspx And it mention something there called AWE (Address Windowing Extension), which I ever used, targeted for people who want to keep data in memory and go beyond 4GB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_Windowing_Extensions -- HLS |