Jon A. Lambert
Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:32:08 -0500
Brad Roberts wrote:
> While it might be simple to replace the genesis storage layer (of which
> gdbm is just a small part, the indexes) with a similar layer that stuffs
> the data into a sql server's blobs, that still doesn't give you any sane
> mechanism for doing any sort of clustered work. Genesis caches data until
> either a checkpoint or a forced cache eviction to load another object.
> This means that in the mean time, data is only visible to the process that
> has the cached data. The only way to get coherence across multiple
> genesis processes accessing the same sql back end would be a distributed
> lock manager and some very careful cache invalidations. This enters into
> the realm of _highly_non-trivial_ work.
Forget the Genesis cache. Insert your SQL replacement at the cache level.
Let the RDBMS's cache and lock managers take care of all of it.
That too is trivial. Well to me it is, only because I've spent 16 years
as a DB2/IRLM systems programmer.
But no, I'm not into "advocating" anything of the sort at all. I'm
perfectly certain that it won't even perform close to the current
configuration. I personally think distributed Genesis servers are not
even remotely interesting. And I'm glad the code hasn't been
cluttered with that nonsense. However be that as it may, I don't
want to discourage experimentation. :-)
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:firstname.lastname@example.org *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--