[Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
John Hancock rickyfingers2000 at gmail.comThu Oct 4 07:14:04 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] OTM 07 Call for Participation
- Next message: [Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Just ran across this piece of advice on slashdot: "I'm not familiar with all of those libraries mentioned in the story, but I'll bet that those three classifications (no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks) probably cover the models used by most if not all of them. If you understand the trade-offs in those, you can produce a sensible design, and then the toolkit or framework you use to code it up is mostly just an implementation detail." -Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) A quick google and a search of the mail list archives did not yield anything that looked like a good explanation of what the differences are between shared state, shared state with explicit locking, and a shared state without explicit locks libraries. Is Anonymous Brave Guy using unusual terminology for concepts that usually go by other names? If anyone on the list would care to share his/her explanation/opinion about what Anonymous Brave Guy wrote, I'd be most honored. -j
- Previous message: [Beowulf] OTM 07 Call for Participation
- Next message: [Beowulf] no shared state, shared state with explicit locking, shared state without explicit locks
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
