Sounds like a good idea.<div>How do you qualify it ? Bug ? (perf) Improvement ?</div><div>It has a major impact on performance when using the S3 CacheStore, so I would like it to be a "performance bug".</div><div>
WDYT ... especially regarding the planning of the next release ?</div><div><br>Phil</div><div><br></div><div>On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Amin Abbaspour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.abbaspour@gmail.com">a.abbaspour@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi,<br>
<br>
Should I open a jira task for this?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Amin<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Amin Abbaspour <<a href="mailto:a.abbaspour@gmail.com">a.abbaspour@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I guess this is a somehow a bug or typo.<br>
><br>
> Transactions and stores are two separate concepts. While it sounds to<br>
> flush to normal store at the TX commit but when one knowingly sets<br>
> store as async, he accepts the risk of consistence in favor of speed.<br>
><br>
> I expect this to be fixed (or at least discussed) before GA.<br>
><br>
> Amin<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Philippe Van Dyck <<a href="mailto:pvdyck@gmail.com">pvdyck@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I do confirm this behavior.<br>
>> Transactions and asynchronous updates may seem antagonistic, but they are<br>
>> not on a multi-level cache.<br>
>> I plan to use a synchronous transactional disk cache and a second non<br>
>> transactional asynchronous s3 cache, to get the best of both worlds.<br>
>> Since the asynchronous aspect of the s3 cache will not allow me to get any<br>
>> feedback (aka Future), I want it to 'write-behind' in the background (and<br>
>> hope everything goes well).<br>
>> I will wait for the qi4j v1 release (probably Monday), adapt infinispan to<br>
>> the blobstore of jClouds and take a closer look at this in a couple of<br>
>> weeks.<br>
>> Phil<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Amin Abbaspour <<a href="mailto:a.abbaspour@gmail.com">a.abbaspour@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi All,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regarding<br>
>>> <a href="http://community.jboss.org/wiki/Write-ThroughAndWrite-BehindCaching" target="_blank">http://community.jboss.org/wiki/Write-ThroughAndWrite-BehindCaching</a><br>
>>> , Even if Syncer is in Async mode, but if we modify a key inside a<br>
>>> transaction boundary it is always stored synchronously! Why is it so?<br>
>>> How can I have both locking and async store. FYI I use JBossTM<br>
>>> Standalone.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>> Amin Abbaspour<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>