Thu Mar 5 09:07:24 CET 2009
I wrote the following a while back - it's a very simple implementation of
what I think is a transactional memory - as far as I can see this mirrors
what the hardware guys thinks is a transactional memory. It's just a simple
generalization of the good 'ol test and set.
I actually think TMs are a bad idea - it's still shared state - and if
the TM fails
then everything gets screwed up. Adding a TM to a system changes the failure
characteristics of the system. A good goal of systems design is to
as much as possible - A better approach is a DHT with a fault-tolerant
replicated store and transactions (like scalaris) - it has worse
latency but is highly scalable
and also offers transactions - what more could you want? (perhaps a TM
cache in front of scalaris :-)
2009/3/5 Tony Arcieri <>:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Michael Truog <> wrote:
>> Doesn't mnesia qualify with its support for transactions?
> That seems to be the general sentiment of the replies I'm getting here.
> Mnesia is certainly a transactional approach to dealing with shared state
> but I don't think that really qualifies it as an STM system. I'm afraid if
> we try to delve any deeper it's just going to turn into a semantic argument
> about what STM actually means, so to those of you who think Mnesia is an STM
> system, I'm just going to say "Great!"
> Tony Arcieri
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions