Atomic ets

[David Hopwood]

Robert Raschke wrote:
> I can understand the problems you get once you decide to go down the
> route of shared storage between parallel tasks.  I guess I myself
> would find it way too complicated.  My approach to dealing with shared
> storage is to use one of the two technologies that have solved this
> problem: databases or file systems.  I am lazy.
> 
> In my mind, if you want to have a parallel application, then any kind
> of shared storage creates a bottleneck.  You can whittle away all you
> like it will remain a limiting factor.
> 
> Granted, the opposite approach of message passing and local storage
> has the overhead of copying lots of data.

Not necessarily: immutable data can be stored in shared memory as an
implementation detail.

There is some overhead associated with using persistent/immutable data
structures as opposed to mutable structures, but this is still a good
approach for many applications (and you can still use mutable structures
within a process).

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@REDACTED>