[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reliability of RPC services
From: |
Tom Bachmann |
Subject: |
Re: Reliability of RPC services |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:46:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060403) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 1. Incoming messages on any valid, unblocked FCRB.
> 2. Especially, incoming idempotent messages.
>
> So one way to guard against a failing server is to use idempotent timer
> events to implement a "heartbeat" -- in much the way that TCP does.
>
I don't get it. What do we gain from artificially awaking M? Is the
FCRB->M C invoked still blocked after step 5?
- --
- -ness-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFETRzyvD/ijq9JWhsRAm49AJ9FVCB0N4ALgGPxrz84UdbHaUmx9gCffElW
qplRIbQTo78Gr7/6CSMWosQ=
=htFQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, (continued)
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/04/22
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Bas Wijnen, 2006/04/23
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/04/23
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/04/25
- Re: Reliability of RPC services,
Tom Bachmann <=
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Tom Bachmann, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Tom Bachmann, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/04/24
- Re: Reliability of RPC services, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/04/24
Re: Reliability of RPC services, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/04/23
RE: Reliability of RPC services, Christopher Nelson, 2006/04/25