From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: ocaml?? why?? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:44:02 +0100 Message-ID: <49DA3152.50502@eu.citrix.com> References: <20090406103321.GA26380@movementarian.org> <49DA08E4.4000303@eu.citrix.com> <20090406135155.GA7928@movementarian.org> <49DA1AEE.7070108@eu.citrix.com> <20090406153851.GC1342@movementarian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090406153851.GC1342@movementarian.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: John Levon Cc: Dan Magenheimer , xen-devel , "George S. Coker, II" , Patrick Colp , Alex Zeffertt , Samuel Thibault List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org John Levon wrote: > Whilst I agree that xenstored's transaction-via-cp is incredibly gross, > you can get most of the benefit with a two-line patch to move it onto > tmpfs (as we have done for quite some time). > you're still writing inside a database on a ram filesystem ... this is just a band-aid solution. >> same thing that the ocaml code does become trivial in C. either you need >> to modify every operation to understand some kind of modification list >> so that the tree get modified only at commit time (compare to now, at >> every operations) >> > > Well exactly. It's hot air since I haven't actually written it, but a > modification list doesn't seem particularly complex to me. > Well that's only half the problem (dare i say the easy part ?), you still need to merge 2 xenstored databases together in a clever way without issuing a EAGAIN to the connection when it's possible (most of the cases). -- Vincent